The new trash fees

Trash has been in the news quite a bit lately, from the solid waste management task force (whose report is here) to the new pickup schedules. The initial report called for a $3.50/month trash fee to cover things like enhanced recycling and dumping enforcement. Now there's a story about a another fee proposal, which I must say is confusing me a bit.

Houston households could see a new charge on their monthly water bills starting this fall -- a $2.25 fee to help the city adopt more environment-friendly waste practices -- but payment would be optional.

City officials estimate the fee, which is included in the mayor's 2008 budget but requires a separate ordinance for approval, would bring in about $4.8 million next fiscal year to enhance recycling and composting programs and enforce illegal-dumping laws.

See, that's exactly what the $3.50 fee was supposed to be about. Does this represent a reduction in that proposal, or a new fee for something else? It's not clear in this story.

The charge would appear on water bills for all households except those who ask to opt out of the program, said Judy Gray Johnson, the city's finance and administration director. It was unclear Wednesday what steps residents would take to decline participation.

Officials estimate about half of Houston households would pay the $27 yearly fee. But "we will have no idea until it happens," Johnson said.

So what would we get for that $2.25 a month? I have no objection to this if it does something useful, but I need more information. And is the city going to try to sell the idea of this to civic-minded folks, or is it just going to assume that most people won't notice it or won't bother trying to opt out? Lots of questions to be answered here.

The fee first was proposed nearly two months ago by a mayoral task force as a $3.50 mandatory monthly charge. That would have generated as much as $19 million a year, officials said.

Residents who pay the fee would not receive any special services that wouldn't be available to those who don't pay, Johnson said. But the entire community would benefit from payment because certain solid-waste programs would be enhanced, she said. For example, curbside recycling could be offered to more homes and illegal-dumping laws would be better enforced in neighborhoods.

That sound you hear is my head spinning. Can we please get a follow up on this, either a story or a blog post, so that whatever this is can be a little clearer? Thank you.

No! Don't come back!

Listen to me carefully here, people. Be very careful what you wish for.

Consumer groups are calling on Gov. Rick Perry to order the state Legislature back into session to make changes to Texas' competitive electricity markets.

AARP Texas and Texas ACORN, which advocates for low-income families, said a bill that died in the final hours of the legislative session on Monday fell short of making the kinds of changes they wanted to see, but would have been better than nothing.

A spokeswoman for the governor said he has not yet decided to whether to call a special session.

Bonnie Mathis, an ACORN board member in Dallas, said in a prepared statement that the group was glad $170 million was returned to the Systems Benefit Fund designed to give some low-income customers some relief.

"But that's not enough to solve the utility crisis we face in Texas," she said. ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, wants rate reductions and protection from electricity shutoffs for the elderly and low income who fall behind on their bills during the summer, Mathis said.

AARP Texas State Director Robert Jackson said in a letter to the governor that he wanted legislation in a special session to provide a 20 percent rate reduction for customers and to address a wholesale pricing system that he said inflates rates across the board.

I didn't follow the saga of SB482, the bill that was supposed to help with electric rates but got killed at the end by a point of order. Maybe it was a good bill, maybe it wasn't - you'll have to forgive me for not giving anything sponsored by Phil King the benefit of the doubt. If we could have a special session that did nothing but reconsider SB482, I'd have no qualm with that. But we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the Governor sets the agenda for a special session, and as sure you're reading this one of the items on the agenda for a special session would be voter ID legislation, which by the way is something that the AARP and ACORN both oppose, for good reason. Is the benefit of one - and again, forgive me for having my doubts about whatever would get passed here - worth the cost of the other? I for one say no, and while I respect the right of AARP and ACORN to think otherwise, I sure hope they're taking the full cost of what they're requesting into account here.

More on Turner for Speaker

Burka thinks the Turner for Speaker campaign is a stalking horse.

There's no way for Sylvester to win. Republicans can't vote for a Democrat for speaker. The best Turner can hope for is to hold the Craddick Ds (who may not be as solid as they were before the blowups) and to add some of the WD-40s and some of the more independent Ds like Strama. Let's say he can get to 25-30 supporters. That gives him a chance to be kingmaker, but not king--and we know who he'll be kingmaker for. More likely, this is not a play for speaker at all. It is a play to protect the Craddick Ds from a primary challenge. Turner's candidacy gives the Craddick Ds the opportunity to pledge to a Democrat. This removes the main argument that can be used against the Craddick Ds in the primary. Then, safely reelected, they can deliver their votes to Craddick in January 09.

Much to think about in there. One point I want to make is that of all the Craddick Ds, I think Turner is the least vulnerable to a primary challenge. Unlike some of his Craddick-crat colleagues, Turner has a real record of accomplishment (think HB109, for starters), and is very well liked in his district. He's not an apostate like Ron Wilson was. He's not an out-of-touch relic like Al Edwards was. Mounting a primary challenge against him would be very difficult. While I can see him laying down cover for some of his colleagues who'll need the help, like Kevin Bailey and Dawnna Dukes, I seriously doubt he himself has anything to worry about. As such, I reject the notion that he's doing this to protect himself next March.

On a side note, be sure to check out this video at BOR that compiles editorial reactions to Tom Craddick's power grab. Good stuff.

UPDATE: Two points from the Chron story, which I didn't get to earlier. One is further evidence that it won't be Sylvester Turner unifying Democrats in his Speaker's bid:

"Mr. Turner has worked against the interest of Democrats by propping up Mr. Craddick. That is not something that is forgotten," said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston.

Coleman, who has had differences with Turner, said he doesn't believe Turner can win. It takes 76 votes to win in the 150-member chamber. The current makeup of the House is 81 Republicans and 69 Democrats.

"It's not because Sylvester isn't smart and has the tenure. It's because he's made bad choices," Coleman said, adding that "if Sylvester is a serious candidate, Craddick is dead. He is defeated now."

From your lips to God's ears, Garnet. Until somebody else actually gets elected Speaker, I'm going to assume that Tom Craddick isn't really dead but merely comic book dead. It's too risky to think otherwise.

Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, Appropriations Committee chairman, said he'll support Craddick if he runs for re-election as speaker but that he hadn't heard from Craddick about his plans.

He also said it's possible that a Democrat could be elected to the top spot in the House, noting the group trying to unseat Craddick came from both parties. He said he believes there are Republicans who would vote for a Democrat for speaker.

So Chisum disagrees with Burka about Republicans voting for a Democrat for Speaker. We'll see who's right. For what it's worth, I can't speak for Republican primary voters, but to revisit the cases of Ron Wilson and Al Edwards again, it wasn't their support of Tom Craddick that galvanized the opposition that eventually ousted them. Wilson was a huge enabler of the 2003 re-redistricting, and basically spent that entire year openly pissing on the Democratic Party and his colleagues. The campaign ads against him wrote themselves. Edwards made some bad votes in 2005, but the real clincher was the Sexy Cheerleading bill, which turned him into a national laughingstock. Point I'm making is simply that one's vote for Speaker, at least historically, has not been that big a deal in and of itself. Admittedly, things are different now (thanks again, Tom!), and given where we are today I'd probably consider a vote for Craddick in 2009 to be an unforgivable sin for a Democrat. Whether the Republicans see it the same way from their perspective, I couldn't say.

600 Sq Mi deadline tomorrow

Houstonist reminds us that the deadline for submitting entries for the 600 Sq Mi photo show is tomorrow (Friday), June 1, at 11:59 PM CDT.

600 sq mi is a juried exhibition of photos from Houston. We're leaving it up to you guys to figure out what that means: skyscrapers, trees, people, neighborhoods, art, freeways, music, food, the sky (or smog) -- as long as it's Houston, it's fair game. For a low, low $10 entry fee, you get to submit up to three photos, from which a panel of professional artists/photographers/curators will pick enough to fill the walls of M2 Gallery in the Heights. The show will be up through the month of September, with an opening reception set for Saturday, Sept. 8.

Enter now, or forever wonder what might have been.

Why do they call you "Hot Tub Tom", Hot Tub Tom?

For those of you who have not yet read Jeffrey Goldberg's New Yorker article on the current unpleasantness within the Republican Party, let me nudge you towards it, as it's a fine read. I'll outsource the Tom DeLay-related snarkery to my friend Juanita (and again) and will simply address the following amusing tidbit:

"Bush was never a conservative, but Tom DeLay was one of us and he betrayed us," Richard Viguerie, a founder of the modern conservative movement, says. "He's like a lot of these guys. They campaign against the cesspool. 'I'll clean up the cesspool of government,' but after a while they all say, 'I made a mistake--it wasn't a cesspool, it was a hot tub.' That's what they called him, you know, Hot Tub Tom."

I'm not sure if Viguerie is simply connecting DeLay to his current meme about how "conservatism" has been betrayed, or if he's creating a just so story about DeLay's old nickname, but as we all know around here, DeLay earned the moniker "Hot Tub Tom" back when he was in the Texas Lege, and it had to do with his party animal proclivities. See, for example, this WaPo profile from 2001:

Tom DeLay was always a top student, an athlete and popular with his peers, but also did his share of drinking and carousing. After two years as a pre-med student, DeLay was asked to leave Baylor University for behavior that was partly fueled by booze and that thwarted his chance of fulfilling his father's ambition for him. (He eventually got a degree in biology at the University of Houston.) Later, as a Texas state legislator from 1978 to 1984, DeLay had a reputation in Austin less as a lawmaker than as a partyer and playboy known as "Hot Tub Tom." He roomed with other fun-loving male legislators at a condo they dubbed "Macho Manor."

Here's a CNN transcript that says basically the same thing. This isn't to say that Viguerie's formulation isn't clever, just that it isn't true. So please don't be misled.

How to speak to global warming skeptics

I'd recommend that you read Grist's How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic page, but be warned that the weight of evidence they bring is depressing. File it away for future reference in any event, as you'll be sure to need it some day. And while you're at it, bookmark the Talk.Origins FAQ as well, since I daresay there's a lot of overlap between the two groups of disbelievers. Thanks to Ezra for the link.

Henry Cisneros to buy Carol Burnett's house

Sort of.

A local organization led by former U.S. housing secretary Henry Cisneros has committed to raise enough money to save the childhood home of comedian Carol Burnett.

American Sunrise, a nonprofit housing and education program, said it will raise the $75,000 to $100,000 needed to move the century-old house from its current location in San Antonio. The Bill Miller Bar-B-Q restaurant chain wants to use the site for a parking lot.

Cisneros said the house will become a part of the American Sunrise campus in San Antonio.

American Sunrise was founded by Cisneros, a former San Antonio mayor, and his wife, Mary Alice Cisneros, who was elected to the City Council this month.

Burnett lived in the folk Victorian home until she was 7. She has often spoken of her memories of the house, including cold enchiladas for breakfast, donated used girls clothes and roller-skating on the hardwood floors.

In May 2006, the gray house with red-and-white trim was listed for $225,000.

Anybody know where in San Antonio this house currently is? I'm wondering if I'd ever driven past it without realizing what it was.

Metro's partnership

This article on the status of Metro's current projects such as the North Line BRT is both encouraging and frustrating.

Two of Metro's bus rapid transit projects will be part of a federal pilot program to measure the potential cost savings of public-private partnerships, a move that could expedite the development of the transit corridors, officials announced today.

One private firm or a consortium of private companies will be responsible for all construction and project management under the terms of the Public-Private Partnership Pilot Program, known as Penta-P, U.S. Transportation Department officials said.

Washington Group Transit Management Co. was selected earlier this month to handle Metropolitan Transit Authority's four corridor projects, including the North and Southeast bus rapid transit lines chosen for inclusion in the federal program. Although no formal agreement has been reached, the company would maintain and operate the lines, assume partial risk and share in the profits.

Metro and the Idaho-based parent company still are negotiating those issues.

It would be very nice to have some kind of basis for comparison to other public/private partnership projects here. How does this stack up to, say, the Trans Texas Corridor, or any of the local RMA toll road projects that are going on? These things have generated a lot of controversy, while I've not heard a peep about Metro's plan so far. Maybe that's because there are fundamental differences, and maybe it's because not much is known about Metro's plan yet. From what there is here, this sounds more like subcontracting than anything else, but I find myself groping for descriptors. More information, please!

This is the encouraging part:

Construction on the North and Southeast bus rapid transit lines, which ultimately may be converted to rail lines, will begin this year and service should be available in 2011, Metro spokeswoman Sandra Aponte Salazar said.

The capital cost for both lines comes to about $432 million, Salazar said. A combination of federal grants and Metro sales tax funds will cover the cost of the four lines, estimated at more than $1 billion, Metro officials have said.

"This shows that the federal leadership is interested in the project and committed to it," she said.

The selection of one firm for the public-private project could save money and development time, Transportation Department officials said.

Salazar said the inclusion of the two corridors in the federal program could shave about two years from the project. She could not provide an estimate of cost savings.

"Metro's inclusion in this program is a significant step toward our promise to Houstonians to build a comprehensive transit system plan to help solve our region's traffic congestion and air quality problems," Metro board chairman David Wolff said.

We knew a little of this already, but it's nice to hear again, and it's definitely nice to see real, tangible progress on the 2012 Solutions plan. I can't wait till groundbreaking.

Sly for Speaker?

Yesterday, the Chron Texas Politics blog reported that House Speaker Pro Tem and staunch Tom Craddick ally Rep. Sylvester Turner was non-committal about who he'd support in 2009.

Turner says he's a free agent as far as the 2009 speaker's race is concerned.

Turner, who was already back in his Houston law firm Tuesday afternoon, said he's had enough speaker's politics to last him six months.

"I don't want to think about the speaker's race for the duration of the year,'' said Turner. "I haven't made any commitments or signed pledge cards.''

The first question members need to ask themselves is whether they plan to return to Austin in 2009, he said. Beyond that, they must assess who will best govern the House.

"Anyone who commits or tries to nail something down now would be acting prematurely,'' Turner said.

Apparently, Turner is disregarding his own advice, because it seems he is thinking about the '09 Speaker's race, and he does have a candidate he's committed to: Himself. QR has the scoop.

SYLVESTER TURNER FILES TO RUN FOR SPEAKER IN 2009

Key Craddick supporter jumps ship

In his statetment, Sylvester Turner (D-Houston) said, "I don't ever want to have another legislative session like the one just completed where taking care of the people's business took a back seat to political agendas. We have too many problems in this state to waste most of a legislative session on political agendas that do not include providing lower electric rates to the low-income and elderly or more funding for mental health programs."

"I have worked effectively in the House under a Democratic majority," Turner said, "and I have worked effectively in the House under a Republican majority. I have sought to treat every member with the utmost respect and I have worked to operate the House with the utmost degree of integrity."

"I sincerely hope that over the next 18 months, members will evaluate and assess my abilities," Turner continued. "I believe I am the best person to serve as Speaker in 2009 and I hope the members will give me the opportunity to serve as their Speaker."

Turner's full statement is here (Word doc). This just got a whole lot more interesting, and a whole lot messier for Craddick. The question is whether Turner can unify Democratic support, or if they'd prefer to stick to Senfronia Thompson. I have no idea right now how this will play out. But it's all good from where I'm sitting. I don't see how Craddick gets to 76 votes without Turner in his corner. That's the best news I'll hear this week.

UPDATE: Early indicators are not positive for Turner as the One True Democratic Candidate for Speaker, at least as far as BOR is concerned.

Fox versus Crosby

Diane Trautman alerts me to an interesting town hall meeting that took place in Crosby (small town northeast of Houston) last night.

[A] recent Fox-26 news [report] showed that supposedly 1 in every 30 residents in Crosby is a child molester. Turns out the lady who did the report has admitted she went to the "wrong website" to get her statistics but has never really apologized to the community for her error. The truth is more like 1 in 320...and the reporter said she spent 3 months investigating the story. This has the potential to hurt home sales, business development, and morale in this peaceful little town.

I just returned from a town hall meeting in Crosby where the chamber provided information on the stories, retractions, and lack of any real apology from the reporter. These people are really hurting about this story. They feel insulted, cut to the quick, and baffled as to why someone would do this. As a candidate for state representative last year, I became very well acquainted with the people of Crosby and very active in their chamber organization. Crosby is truly Hometown USA and could not be more friendly, down to earth, and family-friendly. They welcomed me with open arms even though I live in Humble.

I guess what I would like to see happen for these folks is a public apology from Fox and the reporter but more than that I would like to see Crosby get its due by showing the caring, community-minded, and collaborative spirit that I see everytime I visit.

Thanks to Diane, I have a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that was used at the meeting last night. I'll excerpt the main point here:

[Reporter Carolyn] Canville reported that Crosby has a population of some 1700 people, and that there are 63 registered sex offenders living in Crosby, making the ratio of sex offenders to residents approximately one in thirty.

To come up with her numbers, Ms. Canville used different geographic areas for comparison. She took the number of registered sex offenders for the much larger geographic area served by the Crosby zip code, 77532, and compared that number with the total population of the significantly smaller geographical area comprised of an area called Crosby CDP by the Federal Census Bureau (please see the enclosed maps).

The Census Bureau does report the total population of the larger geographic area served by the Crosby zip code, 77532. Had Ms. Canville any interest in reporting the facts, she would have used that number, which is 20,143. However, 63 sex offenders in a population of 20,143 is not nearly as "news-worthy" as 63 sex offenders in a population of 1714. And this is still with using population data from 7 years ago compared to the sex offender registry of 2007, so even those numbers are askew.

In reality, there are 5 registered sex offenders who report residence addresses within the smaller Crosby CDP area. The actual ratio in the smaller Crosby CDP area is 1:343. The actual ratio in the larger Crosby zip code area is 1:320. Nothing near the 1:30 Ms. Canville would have us believe.

There's more to the story, such as how Canville referred to the registered sex offenders as "sexual predators", which is an obviously loaded phrase, as well as the fact that FOX26 declined to post a correction on their website, saying that they gave a correction on-air, and besides the story is no longer on their site. It's interesting stuff, and I'm curious about how this will resolve itself, since the folks in Crosby are not satisfied with the lack of response they have gotten so far. If I get any updates, I'll post about it.

Governor Perry's first veto

According to Grits, Governor Perry's first veto of 2007 was for HB770, a "bipartisan bill that drew no organized opposition at the Lege". But it would have made it easier for ex-cons who have fully served their sentences to vote, and we just can't have that. Read Grits' analysis for why this was such a petty thing to do.

"We'll go somewhere where there's cheese!"

A little bit of California comes to the Panhandle.

"It is remote, and I'll tell you what: It took a little getting used to," said Richard Avila, who's in the process of moving much of his family's 119-year-old Northern California dairy operation to the Panhandle. "But every time I go back home to California, I can't wait to get back to Texas. There are too many people there."

Jobs abound in the northwestern Panhandle right now, but despite Dalhart's quaint brick streets, tree-lined neighborhoods, clean air and water and country living, its isolation makes the town of 7,300 a tough sell.

How remote is it? The nearest city of more than 100,000 residents is Amarillo, 70 miles to the southeast. The closest large cities -- Albuquerque, Oklahoma City and Denver -- are more than 270 driving miles away.

Dalhart is nearer to six other state capitals (Cheyenne, Denver, Lincoln, Oklahoma City, Santa Fe and Topeka) than its own, and it's a shorter drive to Mount Rushmore than to Houston, which is 690 miles down the road.

Yet those lonely High Plains around Dalhart, the scene of epic drought-born sandstorms in the 1930s, are now seeing an economic perfect storm of sorts, stoked by a massive cheese plant, the influx of large-scale dairies and a booming ethanol-fueled corn industry.

Add existing employers, such as feedlots, a meatpacker and the Dalhart Unit state prison, and the area's slogan may as well be "Help Wanted."

So far, Avila has moved 600 Jersey cows from California, and 750 more are on the way, with a goal of 2,400 head by 2009. He said fellow dairymen are resettling around Dalhart and Dumas at around $1,200 an acre after selling land back home at $25,000 an acre.

But money is only part of the reason behind the new migration, he said.

"It's a $47 billion industry in California, and they're hell-bent on forcing us out of there with all the crazy regulations they have," Avila said, bemoaning an alphabet soup of state and local agencies, mostly environmental.

"It's not that Texas doesn't have regulations. Texas does, but they're consistent and constant. Unlike California, they don't change their minds every week."

Well, there's an argument for a biennial Legislature if ever I've heard one.

Hilmar Cheese, named for the central-California town, eventually plans to make a half-million pounds a day of cheddar, Colby, pepper jack and Monterey jack. Texas currently doesn't produce enough cheese to be listed by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, but Hilmar by itself would cause it to rank 10th at full production.

"Our decision to expand our operations to Dalhart was based on several key factors, including Texas' positive business climate, reliable regulatory environment and an up-and-coming local dairy industry in Dalhart and the greater Amarillo area," said John Jeter, chief executive and president of Hilmar Cheese.

Taxpayers chipped in, too. In competition with Idaho, the Texas Enterprise Fund ponied up $7.5 million, and the plant secured millions more in grants, tax breaks and tax abatements from local and regional governments.

The plant will employ about 120, eventually ramping up to 300 as more dairies justify more production capacity. Avila said dairies hire approximately one person per 100 head of cattle, meaning more than 1,000 milkers would be needed for the Dalhart-Dumas area if all current and permitted projects stock their allotted number of Jerseys or Holsteins.

Let's do a little back-of-the-envelope math here. We don't know how much "millions more in grants, tax breaks and tax abatements from local and regional governments" means, but let's say it's equivalent to the $7.5 million that the Rick Perry Slush Fund ponied up. Let's assume also that a total of 300 jobs will eventually exist, and that none of this would have happened without the incentives provided. That's $50,000 per job, assuming all the moneys are one-time only. Does that make economic sense? I'm not qualified to answer that question, but I sure can ask it.

One more thing:

Panhandle milkers can earn about $36,000 after three years, Avila said, outstripping the base salary of veteran correctional officers at the Dalhart Unit, where overtime is mandatory because staffing is under 70 percent.

Warden Eddie Wheeler is trying to stay positive in the face of the area's opportunity onslaught, which threatens to make his unattractive jobs even more so.

"You get a married couple that moves here, one works (in the dairy industry), and hopefully we pick up the other one," he said. "That's the way I look at it."

You think any of that new prison spending that was just authorized will go towards helping Warden Wheeler with his employment situation? Call me crazy, but I'm thinking "No".

"Lost" Season 3 screen cap recap

Did I mention that I finally got to see the Lost season three finale over the weekend, thanks to my in-laws' TiVo? For those who still haven't seen it, all I'll say is Wow. Just, wow.

Now, for those of you who need to catch up a bit before finally cueing up the TiVo to watch that last episode, may I direct you to this Season Three recap, done entirely in screen caps and silly captions. It's hilarious, and moderately disturbing to realize there are people with that kind of free time and fanatical devotion. On the other hand, if that's not why God gave us the Internet, I don't know why we have it. Enjoy! Link via Linkmeister.

CD Death Watch: One more Christmas

Another post in my occasional series on the impending death of the compact disc. Today's entry: This could be the last good Christmas for the music industry and its CD sales.

Despite costly efforts to build buzz around new talent and thwart piracy, CD sales have plunged more than 20 percent this year, far outweighing any gains made by digital sales at iTunes and similar services. Aram Sinnreich, a media industry consultant at Radar Research in Los Angeles, said the CD format, introduced in the United States 24 years ago, is in its death throes.

"Everyone in the industry thinks of this Christmas as the last big holiday season for CD sales," Sinnreich said, "and then everything goes kaput."

It's been four years since the last big shuffle in ownership of the major record labels. But now, with the sales plunge dimming hopes for a recovery any time soon, there is a new game of corporate musical chairs afoot that could shake up the industry hierarchy.

I'll pause here to note that one of the features of the Chronicle's online edition is a little box called "Search Results", where they have links to related stories in their archives. One such piece is headlined Tough tactics give music industry new sales hope, dated January 14, 2004. It's about how the industry's combination of suing downloaders and aggressively entering the online music sales world would finally reverse four years' worth of declining sales. So much for that.

For the companies that choose to plow ahead, the question is how to weather the worsening storm. One answer: diversify into businesses that do not rely directly on CD sales or downloads. The biggest one is music publishing, which represents songwriters (who may or may not also be performers) and earns money when their songs are used in TV commercials, video games or other media. Universal Music Group, already the biggest label, became the world's biggest music publisher on Friday after closing its purchase of BMG Music, publisher of songs by artists like Keane, for more than $2 billion.

Now both Universal and Warner Music Group are said to be kicking the tires of Sanctuary, an independent British music and artist management company whose roster includes Iron Maiden and Elton John. The owners of all four of the major record companies also recently have chewed over deals to diversify into merchandise sales, concert tickets, advertising and other fields that are not part of their traditional business.

Even as the industry tries to branch out, though, there is no promise of an answer to a potentially more profound predicament: a creative drought and a corresponding lack of artists who ignite consumers' interest in buying music. Sales of rap, which had provided the industry with a lifeboat in recent years, fell far more than the overall market last year with a drop of almost 21 percent, according to Nielsen SoundScan. (And the marquee star 50 Cent just delayed his forthcoming album, Curtis.)

There's a lot of good reasons why the music industry is in the tank, from their sue-the-customer approach to downloading to the stagnation of radio. But don't overlook the abundance of crappy music as a factor. I realize I'm nobody's target demographic, but I can count on one hand the number of major-label CDs that have come out in the last year or so that have made me think "I really ought to buy that". I may not be representative of anything, but I bet I'm not the only person who feels this way.

One more thing, on a personal note:

More than half of all music acquired by fans last year came from unpaid sources, including Internet file sharing and CD burning, according to the market research company NPD Group. The "social" ripping and burning of CDs among friends -- which takes place offline and almost entirely out of reach of industry policing efforts -- accounted for 37 percent of all music consumption, more than file-sharing, NPD said.

So far, I have not ripped any CD that we don't already own. I've only approached one person about it, and that's my buddy Matt, who was my roommate for many years and whose CD collection I still think of as partly mine. I have this bizarre sense of guilt about borrowing other people's CDs to rip, which I can't quite explain. It's not like I didn't borrow friends' albums and CDs back in the day to tape them. I'm sure I'll get over this, but it's still weird.

On the wrong TEAM

You may recall that some counties experienced problems with the statewide voting records system during early voting for the May 12 elections. As a result, some of them are now abandoning that system for one that is used by Harris and 27 other counties at their own expense instead.

Critics of the system, known as Texas Election Administration Management, or TEAM, say former Texas Secretary of State Geoffrey Connor made a mistake by accepting the higher of two final bids for an unproven system.

Connor says the critics are wrong. "I remain confident that we made the best decision we could at the time with the information that was available," Connor said.

Enacted in response to allegations of fraud during the 2000 presidential election, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires that states have an interactive centralized list in which election workers can easily determine whether a person is eligible to vote and to prevent citizens from being registered in more than one location.

Two counties, Hidalgo and Tarrant, recently confirmed they were leaving TEAM to contract with VOTEC, the vendor that Connor rejected in a close contest. The defections raise the number of counties abandoning TEAM to five, and others are considering a similar move.

Connor chose a $13.9 million bid from IBM and Austin-based Hart InterCivic instead of a $13.1 million bid by Science Applications International Corp. and VOTEC.

Connor said the bids were not the only factors he took into consideration in the decision he made in 2004, nor was he obligated to go with the lowest bidder.

He said states across the nation were in the same predicament as Texas in being compelled to deal with technology that had not been tested to comply with a new federal law. Some states modified existing statewide systems while others built new ones.

"It wasn't just about the money, it was about selecting the best product," Connor said. "It was about technology, innovation and leadership."

But Connor's recollection of events puts him at odds with one of his strongest critics, Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt.

"If it's his discretion, he made a poor choice," Bettencourt said. Bettencourt blames Connor, saying he passed over the low bidder with a proven system already in use by Harris County for a proposal from a bidder lacking experience in voter registration systems.

I certainly don't consider Paul Bettencourt to be an unbiased source, but as Harris has never experienced the kind of problems that other counties saw this month, he's got the better of the argument. Databases can be tricky beasts, and especially for something like this it's really important to get it right. I don't see why TEAM can't be made to work - it's not like IBM is some fly-by-night outfit, after all - but someone needs to light a fire under the current Secretary of State to make it happen by next March.

UPDATE: More from Racy Mind.

Eight for '08

With the 2007 Legislative session at a merciful end, it's time to start thinking about what comes next. It's clear that the 2008 election will go a long way towards determining who the Speaker is in 2009, and it's equally clear that for best results, the Democrats have to win as many seats as they can. Better to have enough votes to name your own Speaker than to hope there's a consensus among disgruntled Republicans for who should replace Tom Craddick.

So, with that in mind, here's a list of eight incumbent Republicans that I'd like to see the Democrats target. Not all of these folks are in obviously swing districts, and this is by no means an exhaustive list - I'll discuss some of the more clearcut targets in future segments - but if I had the power to pick and choose, and if I didn't have to worry too much about resource allocation, this would be the starting point for my to-do items.

1. Dwayne Bohac, HD138, Harris County.

The author of the noxious voter ID bill HD218, Bohac is in a district that has a fast-growing Hispanic population, which he knows full well augurs poorly for his electoral future. With the coordinated, Dallas-like campaign for Harris County Democrats in 2008, Bohac presents an appealing target. Though '06 opponent Mark McDavid ran on a shoestring, falling short of the countywide Democratic index in the process, Bohac spent much of his campaign warchest last year, and started out this year with very little in the bank, meaning that his next opponent won't begin the race in a hole. A strong voter registration effort in this district would go a long way towards bridging the gap here. Note that the District Election Analysis provided on his State House page doesn't list the top score attained by a Democrat there, which was Jim Sharp's 46.3%. Seven other countywide Dems out of 18 scored at least 43%.

Prognosis: Winnable. On the short list of must-have seats if the Dems hope to achieve a majority in 2008.

2. Linda Harper-Brown, HD105, Dallas County.

One of the least liked members of the House, who earned several enemies after endorsing Leininger-backed primary challengers to folks like Charlie Geren in 2006. One of about a half dozen Republican House incumbents in Dallas County who was re-elected with less than 60% of the vote in 2006. One of Tom Craddick's more vociferous defenders. Need I say more? If the blue tide that swamped Dallas County in 2006 leads to a stronger collection of State House challengers for unclaimed seats like this one, she could go down.

Prognosis: Winnable. Not quite on the short list of must-have seats if the Dems hope to achieve a majority in 2008, but close.

3. Will Hartnett, HD114, Dallas County.

Another diehard Craddickite, another Dallas rep with less than robust re-elect numbers in 2006. Unlike Harper-Brown, who ran about even with the countywide Republican index, Hartnett lagged his partymates; his 56.8% trails all other Republicans except open-seat judicial candidate Karen Willcutts, with the next worse score by an incumbent being 58.8%. While this makes his district tougher overall, the strong showing by 2006 opponent Philip Shinoda suggests there's room to win by persuasion in addition to boosting turnout.

Prognosis: More of a longshot, though not out of the question. If Dems win this race in 2008, it's been a very good year.

4. Charlie Howard, HD26, Fort Bend County.

I mostly include this to make my blogging colleague The Muse, who has the misfortune of living in Howard's district, smile. This is a Republican district - Bill Moody's 39.9% was the high water mark for Democrats - and while the Republicans there like Howard just fine, he's not much of a heavy lifter in the Lege. His pet bill on "voluntary student expression of religious viewpoints in public schools" needed a last-minute rescue to get passed. Howard's the kind of mostly undistinguished party-line guy who should be challenged as a matter of course. When the demographics of his district start to change, he'll start to become vulnerable.

Prognosis: No real chance of winning, but a decent campaign here can help countywide candidates, and can lay groundwork for the future.

5. Sid Miller, HD59, Central Texas.

A swing seat candidate in an otherwise solid red district. What can you say about a guy who ran a full seventeen points (!) behind ticket leader Kay Bailey Hutchison? Even Don Willett, the weakest statewide Republican on the ballot, did five points better than Miller. I don't know if Miller is that unloved by his constituents, or if '06 challenger Ernie Casbeer ran that strong a campaign, but when you see a guy do this poorly for what should be a gimme seat, you have to take notice. I just hope the HDCC has done so.

Prognosis: This should be a no-hoper, but with the right candidate and enough funding to get a message out, who knows? Depending on how candidate recruitment goes, could be a nailbiter, or could be he runs unopposed. As long as it's not the latter, keep an eye on this one.

6. Anna Mowery, HD97, Tarrant County

The first known-to-be-open seat of 2008, as Mowery announced her retirement shortly before sine die. Mowery was another underperformer relative to statewide Republicans, which may mean it'll be harder to win her seat now that she won't be on the ballot. But you can't think that way, and if the Tarrant Dems are serious about challenging Kim Brimer, this seat shoots up the priority charts.

Prognosis: Winnable, albeit a bit of a reach. Not a must-have, but definitely a nice-to-have.

7. Wayne Smith, HD128, Harris County.

One of only four Harris County Republicans to go unopposed in 2006 (and the only one of those four to have a 2004 challenger), Smith is not in a particularly purple district. I'd rank him fifth or sixth in terms of vulnerability, definitely beneath Bohac, Jim Murphy, Robet Talton, and John Davis, perhaps also beneath Joe Crabb. I see this as a longer-term project, maybe two or three election cycles out. But with Nick Lampson running for re-election in CD22, and with a strong challenger already lined up for SD11, I cannot fathom leaving the House sponsor of SB1317 uncontested. Call it a personal privilege choice, if you'd like. All I know is I'll be mad if Smith skates next year.

Prognosis: Like I said, more of a long-term project than realistically winnable. But you've got to start these projects sooner or later, and I can't think of a better time than 2008 for this one.

8. Bill Zedler, HD96, Tarrant County.

A two-time bad-bill author from this session, thanks to HBs 159 (for which he also gets plagiarism points), and 180, which was a failed effort at more governmental meddling in marriage. Zedler squeaked by with 54.2% of the vote in 2006 - Bill Moody got 47.2%, and local judicial candidate Brenda Cornish got 46.0% - so on a partisan performance basis, this district is about as purple as you could want. As with Anna Mowery's HD97, this district should be a key component to any effort to also knock off Kim Brimer.

Prognosis: Winnable. If it's not on the must-have list for 2008, it's the first one out on the bubble.

Who do you really want to see challenged next year? Leave a comment and let me know.

At long last, sine die

The legislative session is finally over. Before they adjourned, the House voted to finish up business left undone by the Sunday quorum busting, which meant the last day was a lot busier than usual. The good news is that this meant HB1919 got passed; the bad news is that SB11 also got passed. One bill that didn't pass was SB482, which was supposed to provide some electric bill rate cuts, but it died on a point of order. Paul Burka thinks this might be a fulcrum for Governor Perry to call a special session. I can't begin to tell you how much I hope he's wrong about that.

So that's all she wrote. Let the 2008 elections begin.

Barry vs the Hall

Sigh.

As Barry Bonds nears his record 756th home run, he's stockpiling quite a collection of souvenirs -- bats, balls, helmets and spikes, pieces of baseball history perfectly suited for the Hall of Fame.

Whether he'll donate any of them to Cooperstown, however, is in doubt.

"I'm not worried about the Hall," the San Francisco slugger said during a recent homer drought. "I take care of me."

No wonder those at the museum are getting concerned, especially with Bonds only 10 homers shy of breaking Hank Aaron's career mark.

"There's uncertainty," Hall vice president Jeff Idelson acknowledged.

Around 35,000 artifacts are shown and stored at the shrine, and about a dozen pertain to Bonds.

There is a bat from his rookie year and cleats from him becoming the first player in the 400-homer/400-steal club. Unsolicited, he sent the bat and ball from his 2,000th hit. A batting practice bat from the 2002 World Series was the last thing Bonds provided.

"Doesn't everybody have the right to decide to do it or not do it?" he said last week.

The most prized items, the ones that fans would really want to see, are missing.

Nothing directly from Bonds to highlight his 500th home run. Ditto for homers 714 and 715, when he tied and passed Babe Ruth. Same for anything tied to him topping Mark McGwire's single-season total of 70.

Hall president Dale Petroskey went to visit Bonds at spring training last year, and instead walked smack into his reality show. The Giants talked to Bonds this year, and hope he'll be in a giving mood as the big moment comes and goes.

So far, Bonds has not indicated he intends to share any Aaron-related memorabilia.

Barry Bonds has the absolute right to do whatever the heck he wants to do with his memorabilia items. Donate them to the Hall of Fame, bury them in his backyard, go on a national fire sale tour with Pete Rose, it's all his business. But what this is going to do is give more grist to the mill of those who will ridiculously claim that Bonds doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. That's the last thing those jokers need, and my head hurts already just thinking about the column inches this story will generate. It's like Barry Bonds is daring the establishment to disrespect him. Please, someone, get this man a publicist and spare us all the soap opera.

Another Corpus Christi WiFi update

Dwight pays another visit to Corpus Christi, and says their WiFi installation is much better than it was the last time he was there. Yes, EarthLink is their provider, so that's very good to hear. Check it out.

New trash days coming for some

If you live in Houston, be prepared for a possible change in your garbage pickup schedule.

On July 2, the city's trash trucks will begin navigating new routes, changing the regular garbage and yard-waste collection days for about one in six residences.

The city is planning an information campaign ahead of this new collection schedule, which affects about 67,000 homes. The campaign will include at least three direct-mail pieces, radio advertisements and neighborhood signs.

"We hope that most of our customers will get the message, but we know that a number of them won't," said Thomas "Buck" Buchanan, the city's longtime solid waste director.

Buchanan is planning the change at the same time the city takes over 23 routes serving about 85,000 customers, mostly in northeast Houston, when a contract with private hauler Republic Waste Services ends this summer.

During this transition, and armed with new software, Buchanan decided to rethink what would be more than 100 trash routes citywide to boost his department's efficiency and save money.

[...]

Buchanan hopes to reduce the number of routes to fewer than 90, saving money on drivers' pay and truck expenses.

Buchanan said his team realized that it would be most efficient to change some collection days, when factoring in the service centers where trucks are stored and maintained.

The changes won't affect heavy-trash collection and curbside recycling, or residents in apartments.

[...]

Two neighborhood activists said the service-day change shouldn't be tumultuous.

"They just need to make sure people know," said Richard Leal, vice president of the Rose Garden Civic Club, whose neighborhood's pickup days will stay the same. "I don't think the change of the date is going to be all that significant."

Vicki Fiedler, president of the Park Civic Association, where residents will see a change, agreed.

"I can't imagine that it's going to be a big deal after a short period of time," she said.

In addition to the letters and other efforts to get the word out, Buchanan also is budgeting some overtime for his drivers to pick up trash from residents who either don't get the word or forget about the plan.

There will undoubtedly be a few bumps in the road early on, but I agree with Ms. Fiedler, once everyone who's affected gets used to it, it should be no big deal. Unless you hear otherwise, assume you're not affected, but pay attention to your mail to be certain.

Lampson not running for Senate

I had been aware for quite some time now that Rep. Nick Lampson was strongly considering a run for the Senate next year instead of a re-election bid in CD22, so this comes as a surprise to me.

Mustafa Tameez of Houston, a political consultant to Lampson, said this morning that Lampson, the Democrat who last year captured the U.S. House seat vacated by Tom DeLay of Sugar Land, intends to seek re-election instead--fully knowing that his district historically leans Republican.

A Senate bid is "not going to happen," Tameez said. "It sounds goofy, but he feels like he made a commitment to the people of Congressional District 22." Tameez said Lampson feels a Senate try would be "disingenuous."

Tameez aired Lampson's decision to stamp out speculation regarding a Senate bid. "We just want it to stop," he said (unwittingly the desire of some observers of this legislative session).

To see what speculation, peek here and here. Lampson has also fielded criticism for possibly abandoning the district for the uncertainty of a Cornyn challenge.

Assuming Lampson's decision holds, that leaves former State Comptroller John Sharp, state Rep. Rick Noriega of Houston and Mikal Watts, a San Antonio trial lawyer, as confirmed Democratic prospects to tackle Cornyn, who'll be seeking his second six-year term. Their ambitions could shake out soon.

Lampson's constituents, as well as one of the critics of his purported Senate bid are happy at the news. As, I must say, am I. I like Nick Lampson a lot, and I'd have been happy to support him for Senate if he were the Democratic candidate. But he was not my first choice for that candidacy - Rick Noriega is. Having Lampson run for Senate would have meant punting CD22, and might have meant the best candidate to take on John Cornyn (in my opinion, of course) would not have been on the ballot. This represents the best of both worlds - Lampson running as an incumbent is the only Democrat who can hold CD22 - it won't be easy by any stretch, but it is at least doable - and we can maybe get some new and exciting blood at the top of the ticket. All things considered, I couldn't ask for more.

What passes for normal

Talk about your anti-climaxes...After the fireworks this week and especially last night, the House appears to be conducting its normal business today, what will hopefully be the last day they're in session until 2009. Bills are moving, with the parks bill passing easily (that ought to make PM Bryant happy). Governor Perry has finally weighed in - sort of - on all the chaos. Still no indication as to whether or not he thinks there needs to be legislative overtime. As Ryan Rusek points out, Perry has some political calculations to make, too.

Meanwhile, the "Democrats for Real Reform" are tooting their horn about things that did get accomplished this session. Vince takes a closer look at their claims and finds them wanting.

Finally, for future reference, click More for a list of things said recently about Tom Craddick by his fellow Republicans. Enjoy.

What Republicans are Saying about Tom Craddick

Charlie Geren, Republican State Representative

"I knew we had a speaker," said state Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth. "I didn't know we had a dictator."

Fort Worth Star Telegram - Saturday, May 27, 2007

http://www.star-telegram.com/legislature/story/115343.html

Delwin Jones, Republican State Representative

"I didn't agree to serve under a dictatorship," said Rep. Delwin Jones, R-Lubbock, who was first elected to the House in 1964.

Austin American Statesman - Sunday, May 27, 2007

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/05/27/27speaker.html

Todd Smith, Republican State Representative

The percolating rebellion exploded Friday when Craddick refused to allow a legislator to make a motion that would set the path for his ouster.

Craddick then refused to let legislators vote to override his decision.

"It is clearly an abuse of power and of office," said state Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless.

El Paso Times - Sunday, May 27, 2007

http://www.elpasotimes.com/election/ci_6001579

Brian McCall, Republican State Representative

Rep. Brian McCall, R-Plano, said Craddick's abrupt adjournment was a "total disregard for the body and the process."

Fort Worth Star Telegram - Saturday, May 27, 2007

http://www.star-telegram.com/legislature/story/115343.html

Fred Hill, Republican State Representative

Hill said Craddick uses newly elected members like "oxygen" to stay alive. "One of the things that he is very good at is raising money and campaigning against members that don't agree with him," Hill said. "If we don't do something while this body is in session ... we are going to see 18 months of some very aggressive campaigning and a lot of -- I'm just going to call it pure hell."

Fort Worth Star Telegram - Tuesday, May 22, 2007

http://www.star-telegram.com/state_news/story/111280.html

Pat Haggerty, Republican
State Representative

Entering the final day of a
five-month legislative session, a few key bills remained hanging after
they were stalled by a House walkout in the early morning hours in protest
of Craddick. The speaker's opponents from both political parties have
tried all weekend to oust him from power, with no success.

Dozens of angry House members
who want Craddick to leave office walked out of the chamber in protest,
bringing work to a halt.

"This man is sitting here
violating every rule of the House, every rule of parliamentary procedure
to keep himself in office, and it's wrong," said Rep. Pat Haggerty,
R-El Paso.

May 28, 2007, 12:46PM -
Texas legislators move toward end of wild, weird session

By KELLEY SHANNON © 2007 The Associated Press

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/4841547.html

"We have a speaker who will not let the body who elected him take a vote to get him out of office," Rep. Pat Haggerty, R-El Paso, said.

News 8 Austin - May 28, 2007

http://www.news8austin.com/content/your_news/default.asp?ArID=185023

Mike Krusee, Republican State Representative

After Friday night, Rep. Mike Krusee, R-Williamson County, spoke openly of his disagreement with Craddick.

"If he doesn't have the support of the House," Krusee said, "he should be willing to face the vote" to remove him.

Austin American Statesman - Sunday, May 27, 2007

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/05/27/27speaker.html

Rep. Krusee chides House speaker for ignoring motion

Williamson County representative says Craddick's actions go against 'the most fundamental right.'

By Laylan Copelin

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Monday, May 28, 2007

State Rep. Mike Krusee, once
a loyal lieutenant to Speaker Tom Craddick, criticized the leader's
ruling to ignore motions to remove him from office.

Speaking to the House early
this morning, Krusee disputed Craddick's ruling as wrong under the House
rules and contrary to the chamber's tradition and practice.

"Since the days of Thomas
Jefferson, the father of parliamentary law in the United States,"
Krusee said, "the questioning of the leadership of the presiding
officer has been the most fundamental right of the members who elected
that leadership."

Krusee argued that members
who elect the speaker can remove the speaker.

"Mr. Speaker, we can disagree on many things," he continued, "but you cannot disagree with the fact that you are here because we put you here."

Krusee, R-Williamson County, said the Republican Party is now spinning the standoff between Craddick and the Texas House of Representatives, which has a Republican majority, as a partisan issue.

"What a perversion," Krusee said, "especially for a party in the minority in Washington."

He said the absolute power to deny the right to question authority is not a principle of any political party in this country.

Krusee likened the standoff to the Berlin Wall that President Reagan demanded that the Soviets tear down.

"This interpretation of our rules has erected a wall between the leadership and the membership,"

Krusee said. "Mr. Speaker, we must tear it down."

Craddick watched from the podium
as House members applauded Krusee's speech.

His remarks, however, were
overshadowed minutes later after Rep. Pat Haggerty, R-El Paso, led a
walkout of House members.

Austin American Statesman -
May 28, 2007

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/05/29/29craddick.html

Jim Keffer, Republican State Representative

One of Craddick's chief lieutenants and Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means, Republican Jim Keffer, declared he was going to challenge Craddick for Speaker. According to an article posted on the Quorum Report, Keffer announced his candidacy for Speaker after being threatened with a primary opponent.

"In my opinion, Speaker Craddick needs to announce that he will not seek another term and let the members pursue a new Speaker's race," said Keffer. "However, if Craddick does pursue another term, I will aggressively challenge him and will welcome others to also enter the Speaker's race."

"Since Craddick took over as Speaker, Republicans have lost 7 seats in the Texas House and several Democrats who have supported Craddick have been defeated in Democratic primaries. Craddick has also been the first Speaker in over 35 years to be over-ruled on a point of order by the Texas House membership which occurred in early May.

"I am committed to the three-term limit and if elected by my colleagues I am committed to being a Republican House Speaker in a Republican majority who will honor the rules, respect each member's district, and pass good public policy."

As an aside, sources close to Keffer tell us that he has received calls from supporters in the district telling him that Craddick is attempting to recruit and fully fund a challenger for the next election.

Quorum Report - May 15, 2007

http://www.quorumreport.com/Subscribers/Article.cfm?IID=11110

Byron Cook, Republican State Representative

Craddick lieutenant and Chairman of the Civil Practices Committee, Republican State Representative Byron Cook, uses a personal privilege speech on the house floor to call on Craddick to resign. Cook's committee is groud zero for the battle between TLR and TTLA. In his speech, Cook essentially accuses Craddick of placing his own finaical gain ahead of the public good.

"I am a Republican, who has voted for Speaker Craddick three times, but I will not and cannot support his re-election, and he needs to step down immediately.

My position is not without cost. I have been threatened, had my ability as chair called to question, and I am well informed about the opposition recruitment efforts in my district. So be it.

To all this I say simply: I will not yield. I will not yield to tyranny, bullying or threats.

This body will never realize its potential as long as fear, intimidation, retaliation and character assassination are allowed to be tolerated.

Greatness is never found in leaders who place their self-interest and financial gain above the public good. This is wrong, unethical and must be stopped.

This session we have witnessed a manipulation of the rules and the legislative process. It appears the budget is being stopped, delayed and exploited for political gain. This is wrong! Who knows what pork will be added for votes.

Now we have the threat that the Speaker will use his $4 million dollar speaker account (Should I add a zero to make it $40 million?) to attack fellow Republicans.

This is out of bounds -- it is an abuse of office. Mr. Speaker, your action may force this House to take an historical position -- so be it.

Mr. Speaker, please step down. Don't put this body through 18 months of hell. Your re-election would only result in a bloody and brutal 81st session."

Texas House Journal - page 4840 - 80th LEGISLATURE -- REGULAR SESSION

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/hjrnl/80r/html/80RDAY80FINAL.HTM

Warren Chisum, Republican State Representative

"Obviously, he's damaged goods after this deal, in terms of leading a bipartisan Legislature," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum said about 24 hours after the House had descended into chaos over Mr. Craddick's use of the rules to quash any effort to unseat him. "He's going to have to do a lot of soul-searching before the rest of us can decide what to do," he said.

Dallas Morning News - Sunday, May 27, 2007

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052707dntexspeaker.3a19488.html

Burt Solomons, Republican
State Representative

"We have respected him
as speaker up to a point, but there's a lot of dissatisfaction in the
House over the way it's being run," said House Financial Institutions
Committee Chairman Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, who has staunchly supported
Mr. Craddick's speakership. "Three sessions [as speaker] is enough."

Mr. Solomons, who carried the
resolution writing the House rules in January, said he was stunned at
the speaker's interpretation of his own power.

"As the person who did the rules and served under a number of parliamentarians, I was unaware that there was that absolute power on the part of the speaker," he said. "The speaker always had a lot of power, but not absolute power. That was not the intent of the rules. ... No legislative body in the country provides absolute power to any one individual."

Dallas Morning News - Sunday, May 27, 2007

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052707dntexspeaker.3a19488.html

Rick Hardcastle, Republican State Representative

Asked whether Mr. Craddick would return as speaker for another term, House Energy Resources Committee Chairman Rick Hardcastle shrugged, smiled and said, "I am not advised."

Dallas Morning News - Sunday, May 27, 2007

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052707dntexspeaker.3a19488.html

Dan Branch, Republican State Representative

Dallas GOP Rep. Dan Branch, a loyal Craddick ally since he entered the House in 2003, said that he was "reserving judgment" about 2009 until the House can make it to adjournment on Monday - and that he wants to focus on state business until then.

"After that," he said, "I look forward to sitting down with the speaker and talking about his future and what's best for the state."

Dallas Morning News - Sunday, May 27, 2007

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052707dntexspeaker.3a19488.html

David Swinford, Republican State Representative

State Affairs Committee Chairman David Swinford agreed, saying he didn't know whether Mr. Craddick would be able to come back but that if he runs in a crowded speaker's race, "he'll probably be in the top 2 or 3."

"It's going to be a long race," he said.

Dallas Morning News - Sunday, May 27, 2007

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/052707dntexspeaker.3a19488.html

Quorum busted after budget vote

If passing the budget wasn't the big news yesterday, then this would have to be it.

Tempers finally spilled over on the House floor this morning with two lawmakers shoving each other and members walking out of the chamber after Rep. Pat Haggerty began taking a roll call on who supported Speaker Tom Craddick and who wanted to remove him from office.

The House had to adjourn when the walkout left the chamber without a quorum.

"Tonight was the only way that people could express their vote of no confidence in the speaker,'' Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, said. "The way this session has been run by the speaker has been an example of someone using absolute power to corrupt the democratic process.''

The House had approved a new state budget before the disruption, but the walkout jeopardized several other major bills, including a new water plan, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice sunset bill and a bill involving parks funding.

[...]

[Pat] Haggerty, an El Paso Republican, began taking a roll call during a personal privilege speech, which triggered an all-out rebellion.

Turner, D-Houston, a Craddick ally, told Haggerty he had to stop his roll call, which showed more members favoring Craddick's ouster.

"It's the only way to send a message,'' Haggerty said.

He also blasted Craddick's new parliamentarians, whom the speaker brought in Friday night after his parliamentarian and her assistant quit.

Terry Keel and Ron Wilson, both former House members, are Craddick's allies and issued rulings indicating that Craddick had absolute power not to recognize members for a motion to remove him. Both Keel and Wilson lost elections.

"Where did they go to parliamentarian school that somehow makes them better than God?'' Haggerty asked.

That's my new favorite quote from the entire session. My sincere thanks to you, Rep. Haggerty, for providing it.

Among the many notable things about last night's action is the increasing number of onetime Craddick supporters who are now speaking against him. El Paso Democrat Norma Chavez, who was quoted in that E-N story. Round Rock Republican Mike Krusee:

"This interpretation of our rules has erected a wall between the leadership and the membership," said House Transportation Committee Chairman Mike Krusee of Round Rock, one of several House chairmen who began the session supporting Mr. Craddick and ended it vowing to replace him. "Mr. Speaker, we must tear it down."

But earlier, Mr. Krusee acknowledged that Mr. Craddick held all the cards.

"When the speaker rules that he can overrule all the House rules, where do you go?" he said. "You have nowhere to go."

[...]

"This will be dealt with in the rules next session," said House Financial Institution Chairman Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, who carried the House rules through its ratification in January and said it was "never the intent of the rules" to give the speaker absolute authority. "Whether I do it again, or someone else does. But it will be dealt with."

Solomons has spoken before about the way the rules he helped implement have been interpreted. One person to watch for is Warren Chisum, who was one of Craddick's most powerful allies this session, and who's known to be very respectful of the House as an institution. I suspect Chisum doesn't much care for putting one person above the House as a whole. Should he come out and say so publicly, I'd consider that a death blow to Craddick.

Craddick's supporters claim that since there were 94 legislators left on the floor after the walkout, that means he's in even stronger shape than he was at the start of the session. Karen Brooks has a response to that:

[B]y my count, there are about a dozen who were voted in that 94 but may not have voted against a motion to vacate.

I'm not making assumptions about anyone, I'm being very conservative, so I'm going to give you the most obvious among those: Jose Menendez, D-SA; Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston; TODD SMITH (a leader in the insurgency); Chente Quintanilla was in the bathroom and didn't walk out OR vote (though someone voted him.)

In short, however, this number is no more meaningful than the 87 who voted to overrule the chair a few weeks ago. The insurgents didn't have 87 votes then, and Craddick doesn't have 94 now.

What I've noticed is that there are no new voices speaking out for Craddick. Maybe they're just keeping their mouths shut, but there's a lot of new antis making themselves known. Make of that what you will.

BOR followed all the action last night for the insomnia crowd. Looks like several major bills, including the zombie version of HB13 are likely dead (again, in some cases), which makes the Observer wonder about a special. We'll know when Governor Perry finally breaks his silence on all this. Stay tuned, the House convenes one last time for this session today at 2.

Budget passes

What can you say when the budget gets passed and that's nowhere near the biggest news of the day?

The Texas Legislature approved the $152.5 billion state budget after midnight, with supporters defending it as fiscally responsible and critics calling it a pork-bloated plan embroiled in speaker's race politics.

Just one day before the Legislature must adjourn today, the House voted 114-35 and the Senate voted 25-5 for the two-year spending plan, which covers everything from public schools to prisons to health care for the poor. It now goes to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration.

"This is a responsible budget that will meet the needs of Texas," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, after leaders staved off potential filibusters that could have killed the measure.

In the House, Rep. Jim Pitts, R-Waxahachie, had a different view: "The time has come to say enough is enough. We have a duty to pass an honest, responsible budget, and, members, this budget is neither of those."

The House vote for the bill was 114-35, despite efforts by opponents of House Speaker Tom Craddick to kill it.

Failure to pass a budget would mean a special session, which would give Craddick foes another chance to try to unseat him if they don't do so by the time this session concludes.

There seems to be a lot of anti-Craddicks calling for a special session at this point. I'd rather there not be, since there's a lot of bad legislation that would be resurrectable in a special. Far as I can tell, Governor Perry has not said anything about the possibility since his veto of HB1892 was not overridden. I've no idea what he thinks of all this yet, but at least he doesn't have to call a special if he doesn't want to.

Duck and cover, or head for the hills?

I have a feeling that this is a subject we'll visit again and again in the coming years.

More than half of all evacuees from Hurricane Rita lived on ground high enough to avoid a surge of water from even the most powerful storms.

Some hurricane experts say most of these 1.5 million "shadow evacuees" must heed the mantra of emergency planners -- run from water, hide from wind -- if Houston's next evacuation is to avoid the myriad problems of Rita's exodus.

Marc Levitan, director of Louisiana State University's Hurricane Center in Baton Rouge, La., and Walter Maestri, former director of emergency management for Jefferson Parish, La., both said the key is offering inland residents credible options for sheltering in place.

"There are two main strategies for reducing exposure to hurricane hazards: evacuation and sheltering," Levitan said during a recent hurricane conference at Rice University. "Houston has embraced one, but it has, apparently, forgotten the other one."

Added Maestri in an interview, "With evacuations we are facing an impossible task. It cannot be done. Getting everyone out safely and quickly is like asking how many people we can get to dance on the head of a pin."

I don't doubt that most of Houston has little to worry about from a storm-surge perspective, and that sheltering is the safe, rational, and cost-efficient solution for the vast majority of folks here. But speaking from my own personal experience, there are factors beyond flood waters that go into everyone's own accounting of the risks. It's wise for the city to preach and teach preparedness, and to have places for people who can't shelter in their own residences to go. It's foolish to think that everyone who "should" shelter in place by some rational calculation will do so. It's foolish for the city to base its emergency plans on that as well. That's all I'm saying. SciGuy has more.

North Line BRT groundbreaking in July

Lawsuit or not, at least one part of the Metro expansion plan is moving forward.

Metro officials Thursday told Greater Northside Management District executive director Rebecca Reyna and other members of the North Corridor Coalition that construction of the 5.4-mile North Bus Rapid Transit line could break ground in early July.

The project will go from the University of Houston-Downtown to Northline Mall. It will run along Fulton Street north of downtown through the Greater Northside district, which is bordered by West Little York, the Hardy Toll Road, Interstate 45 and downtown.

"How much notice will we get before you start construction?" Reyna asked members of the Metro project team. "We really want to work with the businesses and residents in our district."

The North Corridor Coalition is a group of business and civic organizations along Interstate 45 that support the implementation of the Metropolitan Transit Authority's 2025 System Plan and a mass transit system from downtown to The Woodlands.

Pete Finn, Metro's North transit line project director, said Metro's project management company planned to roll out a comprehensive public outreach plan that includes community, town-hall and stakeholder meetings.

I wonder if the bogus attacks about the line's route will come up again. The anti-Richmond lawsuit threw in stuff about BRT in its filing, even though plaintiff Daphne Scarbrough doesn't live or work near any other line.

Speaking of the route, here's a reminder of what it is:

Before the Metro board approved the route last fall, the alignment was switched from Irvington/Cavalcade to Fulton because that is what the community wanted, Finn said.

The North Bus Rapid Transit line starts at the Intermodal Terminal Facility on North Main near the University of Houston-Downtown.

Following North Main out of downtown, an aerial structure will extend about one-half mile to the first Northline station --Burnett Station -- and then beyond to a point south of Hogan Street where the tracks return to ground level.

North of the second station -- Quitman Station -- the line turns east on Boundary Street and joins up with Fulton Street.

The line continues north on Fulton to Northline Mall, with stops at Catherine Station near the intersection of Fulton and Irvington; Cavalcade Station at Cavalcade and Fulton; Graceland Station at Fulton and Graceland; Melbourne Station north of the Fulton/Loop 610 intersection; and the Northline Station at Northline Mall, which is located near Fulton and Crosstimbers.

The Quitman Station will probably be the closest thing to my house. Too far to walk, but bicycling might be an option, if there isn't a parking lot there.

Though most of the major construction would not start until after the design/construction contract is awarded in February 2008, Finn said the project would break ground in early July and some construction activities would start soon after.

"We plan to start in the vicinity of Northline Mall and go south," Finn said.

[...]

Jack Drake, president of the Greater Greenspoint Management District and a North Corridor Coalition member, asked if Metro would consider converting the North line from a bus rapid transit system to a light rail system when ridership numbers climbed high enough.

Finn said that it would. In fact, he said, if the Washington Group found a way to build a light-rail line with money allocated in the initial project, they could forego the bus-rapid transit system. If not, tracks for the light-rail system would be constructed in the bus-rapid transit guideway.

"We were told that 2012 may be when we could jump on a vehicle at UH-Downtown and travel to Northline Mall for lunch," Drake said. "Is that still the plan?"

Cyndi Robinson, Metro's senior project manager for planning, engineering and construction, said the plan is to start construction next year and finish by 2012.

Can't happen soon enough, I say.

Reports of HB13's death were exaggerated

Cripes. Some bills just won't stay dead.

Rep. Frank Corte, the House's number one law-and-order-civil liberties-be-damned legislator is trying to ride to the rescue. According to sources on the conference committee, Corte is trying to shovel some of the worst provisions in HB 13 into his SB 11 (another awful homeland security bill). In particular, Corte wants to put the fusion center, a fancy name for a huge intelligence database that will house both private and public information on Texans, into the governor's office.

The bad news is that Corte has gotten this past the committee conferees on SB11. The good news is that, as Grits notes, it'll take a 2/3 majority to pass due to the route Corte took to get it this far. Surely fifty Nays is not too high a hurdle to kill it. Right? If all else fails, maybe the House just won't have time to get to it. Keep your fingers crossed.

Talton the Torpedo strikes

Rep. Robert Talton, the biggest bill-killer this session, has apparently called a point of order on the budget bill, HB1. He was one of a few anti-Craddick Republicans to complain about pork in the budget, and it looks like he's found a way to put his feelings into action (after being thwarted on the CHIP bill earlier). I'm told they're conferring now, to try and figure out what to do with the wrench he's just thrown into the works. Lord knows there's been no rhyme or reason to point of order rulings, but who knows how this may play out. The Senate has delayed its action on the budget till tomorrow. A special session is hanging on this. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Craddick rules against Talton, then after muttering some dark imprecations Torpedo Bob makes a gentlemanly retreat. Special session averted for the time being.

Comments on Memorial Day

The following is from Rep. Rick Noriega:

Comments on Memorial Day

LTC Rick Noriega

May 27, 2007

Our great country is at war. This Memorial Day weekend, as we move from barbecue to pool, we need to take a moment and reflect on the true origin of this weekend holiday. We need to remember the sacrifice of those who have gone before, those who are serving now, and those who have lost more than most of us could ever imagine. Memorial Day has grown from various solemn remembrances of the sacrifices of our soldiers as far back as 1868 in Waterloo, NY, and was declared a federal holiday in 1971.

One of the things this holiday may represent is that people have died for our right to disagree. In the face of such service and sacrifice, using overheated, incendiary language normally used to typify armed conflict to describe divisions in the Texas House of Representatives is not helpful and possibly irresponsible. "Insurgents," "rebels," "storming," "charged," "anarchy" are not appropriate terms to describe the occurrences in the Texas House this weekend. It is dramatic to use such over-the-top expressions, but it is not accurate or appropriate.

Genuine differences in opinion, concern about appropriate use of Texas House rules to stifle debate and disagreement, fundamental discussions of the use of this great state's resources to meet the needs of its citizens--all are in play at the Texas Capitol this holiday. In the face of such drama, it is tempting to go over the top to try and convey the intensity of the discussion and the strong differences in opinion of the members of the Texas House. For the sake of accurate reporting and the gravity of the discussion, it might be more responsible to take the language down a little and leave the war analogies to CNN and Fox News.

Democracy is messy. Democracy at its best is not everyone agreeing, of not knowing the answer to every question. Democracy is hashing out all the sides and listening to all the voices, and bringing forth the common ground for the common good. We would challenge you to not silence the voices of discontent, but instead embrace the fundamental tenet of democracy, that of listening to a different view.

We are at a critical time in our history and in the Texas House of Representatives, and there is fundamental bipartisan disagreement in the Texas House about our future, its leadership and the rule of law.

As our men and women overseas defend our freedom to argue and discuss and compromise and disagree, please honor their service by a responsible use of language. And please understand that our duty and responsibility for the common good, for democracy, suggests that the current bipartisan effort in the Texas House must have its voice heard. God bless Texas.

I see that Burka is still using the language of "insurgents" and whatnot, but he's got a pretty clear-eyed view of te situation (see here and here for more), so I'll let it slide this time.

Elsewhere, Vince is liveblogging, BOR is keeping track of the Craddick Ds, and the Texas Democratic Party is calling on people to sign their petition to "encourage Speaker Tom Craddick to respect the will of the people as represented by our elected Representatives and ask that he either resign immediately or allow the Texas House to vote on a motion to vacate the Chair". Stay tuned.

Oh, yeah, the budget, too

We may finally get to some budget debate today, too. If you want to know where things stand, the CPPP, in particular Scott McCown, says:

"While the budget will spend almost 95% of General Revenue on education, health care, and corrections, too much has been set aside for tax cuts that mostly benefit upper-income families. As a result, many important needs will go unmet, while our tax system grows more unfair. The budget will keep Texas at the bottom in what we invest in our children and how we care for our most vulnerable." Here CPPP has prepared county-level information to illustrate the current and potential impact of state government spending in local communities. More detailed analyses of program-level impacts will be made available as soon as possible.

There's multiple links there with detailed analyses for those who want to know. Check it out.

CHIP deal reached

With all the craziness in the House yesterday, the news that a CHIP deal was reached by Senate and House conferees got overlooked. Which is too bad, because it looks like it's a pretty good deal.

Under the agreed-to plan, which still needs a final OK from the full House and Senate, the CHIP families with the highest incomes would have their eligibility checked after six months in the program. A family of four can earn up to $41,000 and still be eligible for CHIP.

The families of about 9 percent of CHIP children -- some 29,000 children -- would be affected. That's a change from the 40 percent of families the Senate plan proposed to check. The House plan didn't have the electronic checks.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst has said that the electronic verifications would ensure that only eligible children are enrolled. Opponents to the checks, such as Turner, argued that it would be red tape for families.

The compromise plan would add 127,556 children to the program by easing enrollment restrictions put in place in 2003. It would eliminate a 90-day waiting period for uninsured children to enroll and it would allow families to stay in the program for a full year instead of having to re-apply every six months.

More from the AP:

Sen. Kip Averitt said House and Senate negotiators have signed off on the deal and plan to seek each chamber's approval on Sunday.

"I think it's an excellent opportunity for the state to enroll a significant number of new children into the program," said Averitt, R-Waco, who led the Senate's negotiating team.

[...]

The compromise plan increases the income level where checks begin so that fewer families go through the process. State officials estimate that at least 27,000 more children would be covered under the compromise plan than in the Senate's version.

House and Senate budget writers have already approved almost $90 million for CHIP, though neither chamber has adopted the spending plan yet.

One advocacy group hailed the compromise as an "important victory for Texas children."

"Texas will be able to reduce its number of uninsured children, children will receive care in doctors offices instead of emergency rooms, and Texas will be able to maximize federal matching funds instead of sending our tax dollars to other states," said Barbara Best, executive director of the Children's Defense Fund of Texas.

Hopefully, this final version of HB109 will get passed in both chambers so that even if there is a special session there won't be any need to revisit this. They should be back in chamber now, so we'll see.

What next in the House?

So we're down to the wire for the Lege this session, with a lot of unfinished business to deal with amid all the Speaker strife. I know that Tom Craddick will be more powerful if he makes it through to sine die as Speaker, but there's a part of me that would rather see his deposing put off till 2009 if the alternative is not passing the budget and going to a special session. While I don't doubt that there are some budget items that need scrutiny, a special session means that all kinds of bad legislation that we thought were dead is back in play (at least one such bill has already been resurrected). Basically, a special session means the two nasty voter ID bills become law.

Given that choice, I'd rather go home and fight it out in the elections. I'd rather have the specter of Tom Craddick as Supreme Dictator For Life be the dominant image from this session rather than give his supporters the chance to claim that the opposing forces put the Speaker fight above House business, with the special session as proof. Especially since it's looking like more Craddick supporters are reassessing their positions going forward.

"Obviously, he's damaged goods after this deal, in terms of leading a bipartisan Legislature," House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum said about 24 hours after the House had descended into chaos over Mr. Craddick's use of the rules to quash any effort to unseat him.

[...]

"We have respected him as speaker up to a point, but there's a lot of dissatisfaction in the House over the way it's being run," said House Financial Institutions Committee Chairman Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, who has staunchly supported Mr. Craddick's speakership. "Three sessions [as speaker] is enough."

Mr. Solomons, who carried the resolution writing the House rules in January, said he was stunned at the speaker's interpretation of his own power.

"As the person who did the rules and served under a number of parliamentarians, I was unaware that there was that absolute power on the part of the speaker," he said. "The speaker always had a lot of power, but not absolute power. That was not the intent of the rules. ... No legislative body in the country provides absolute power to any one individual."

[...]

Dallas GOP Rep. Dan Branch, a loyal Craddick ally since he entered the House in 2003, said that he was "reserving judgment" about 2009 until the House can make it to adjournment on Monday - and that he wants to focus on state business until then.

"After that," he said, "I look forward to sitting down with the speaker and talking about his future and what's best for the state."

Asked whether he would support Mr. Craddick's drive for another term as speaker, Mr. Chisum, R-Pampa, said he's still waiting to see if he'll run.

"He's going to have to do a lot of soul-searching before the rest of us can decide what to do," he said.

I don't know what will happen today, and to some extent you have to take remarks like these with a grain of salt. And of course with various filibuster threats on the budget, there may not be a choice in the special session matter. All I'm saying is that I hope we're all on the same page strategy-wise.

I was going to do a roundup of news coverage of yesterday's action, but South Texas Chisme saved me the trouble. As always stay tuned.

Strip clubs get an stay of execution

The Astrodome may have lost its reprieve, but it appears that the local strip clubs have gained one for themselves, at least for now.

On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans issued a stay of enforcement pending the outcome of an "expedited" appeal to be argued as soon as August.

The stay prevents the city from arresting employees and owners at the Colorado Bar & Grill and The Men's Club, and possibly five other large businesses that have joined in the appeal: Ritz Cabaret, Treasures, Trophy Club, Gold Cup and Centerfolds.

"We're quite excited, and very, very pleased for the clients and the citizens of Houston," said John Weston, a Los Angeles-based lawyer representing Colorado Bar & Grill and The Men's Club.

[...]

It was unclear Friday how many other businesses would be protected from enforcement by the stay. The court's order lists several other topless clubs and bookstores. Some businesses' names and owners have changed since the case was filed a decade ago, so a precise number couldn't be determined late Friday.

Don Cheatham, a senior assistant city attorney monitoring progress in the case, received word from the appellate court by phone late Friday. He said he wasn't yet sure how the ruling would affect the city's plans.

"We don't know how broad it is or what it covers," he said of the ruling, which he hadn't yet read.

Houston police Capt. Steve Jett, who commands the vice unit investigating the businesses, said he was surprised by the decision and would have to discuss it with city attorneys before proceeding.

[...]

To get Friday's stay from the 5th Circuit, the clubs' lawyers had to show there were substantial legal questions remaining in their appeal, and that they would suffer more if the enforcement continued than the city if it were halted pending resolution of the case.

The ruling offered a glimmer of hope to at least some businesses, who had been preparing to close, move or change their operations to comply with the ordinance.

[...]

Their appeal argues against the distance provision in the ordinance, saying the city can't justify that the businesses have negative "secondary effects" at their current locations.

"There was no constitutional justification for expanding the distances such that it had a retroactive impact upon the previously licensed businesses," said Weston, who has argued seven cases before the U.S. Supreme court.

Among many issues raised in the appeal, they also argue that there aren't enough alternative sites for them to legally operate, and that the judge erred by examining the availability of those locations based on decade-old, not current, conditions in Houston.

I keep coming back to the distance provision. It doesn't seem right to me that a business that has operated legally for a decade or more under one requirement can suddenly be declared illegal. And I'm also not sure what the public interest is in keeping something a certain distance away from a church. Residences and schools, sure, but churches? I don't understand. Looks like getting this injunction was a nontrivial thing, so maybe there is still hope for the clubs. We'll see.

Not so fast on that Astrodome reprieve

Miya Shay reports that the effort by Sen. Kyle Janek to make the Astrodome redevelopment project eligible for certain tax rebates may not make it through after all. With all that's happening in the House, if this wasn't a sure thing before, I wouldn't think much of its chances now. But we'll see. FYI, this is a video report, and you have to sit through a 20-second commercial first.

Earthlink passes test in Philadelphia

Good news for EarthLink, our city WiFi provider.

EarthLink, the Internet Service Provider that has contracted to build a wireless network in Houston, today cleared a major hurdle in Philadelphia, where it has begun building another of the nation's largest networks.

The first phase of the Philadelphia project, a 15-square mile network that blankets downtown, works well and has gained approval from the nonprofit group hired by the city to oversee the project, Mayor John Street announced.

That means EarthLink can continue to build in Philadelphia, which expects to have a wireless connection by the end of the year that covers nearly all of the city's 135-square miles.

Houston's project is planned for nearly five times that size, 640-square miles, the biggest in the country.

Nice to see progress. Hopefully they'll see equivalent process in their business model review as well.

Afternoon update on the mess in the House

I'm about midway through the season finale of Lost (thank prime for my in-laws' TiVo) and wanted to pause for a moment for a brief House update. The anti-Craddicks are still trying to make a motion to vacate the Speaker's chair, and they're still not being recognized. The dirty work today is being done by Sylvester Turner and Terry Keel, while Craddick works the room. When DPS troopers have to be stationed at the door of the House chamber, you know things have gone to hell in a handbasket. Meanwhile, an ethics complaint has been filed against Ron Wilson, Sen. Dan Patrick resorts to name-calling, and you can add Sen. Kyle Janek to the list of potential budget filibusterers. Finally, in the spirit of equal time, Quorum Report has the anti-Craddick response (PDF) to why his behavior is unconstitutional. Oh, and Grits is disgusted. I think that about covers it for now. Back to the TiVo for me.

And the fun begins again

I know, it's the Saturday of a holiday weekend, but the Lege is back at it, and who knows what will happen today. At some point, bills will be considered and maybe even passed. Here's one that's dead, killed by the delays last night, for which I'm grateful. Glen Maxey thinks Craddick's supporters should say "enough!" and call on him to step down, but his lieutenants appear to be as loyal as ever. As for the budget, the CHIP bill, and other matters of importance, they're all pretty much background items now. If only Molly Ivins were still here to enjoy the spectacle. Stay tuned.

So what happened last night?

Short answer: Several members attempted to make a motion to vacate the Speaker's chair. Craddick refused to recognize them, refused to allow an appeal of his rulings, and declared that he had sole and total discretion in the matter. If that sounds to you like he promoted himself from Speaker of the House to Supreme Dictator For Life, I'd say you're on the right track.

For the long answer, I recommend reading the accounts of the people who stayed up much later than I did to watch it all:

BOR: Rep. Hill Takes the Podium- Motion to Vacate

BOR: Picture Worth A Thousand of Terry Keel's Words

BOR: Todd Smith (R-Euless) Plays Key Anti-Craddick Role

BOR: House Adjourns, What A Night

Texas Observer: His House, His Rules

Capitol Letters: Wonder what the heck just happened?

Capitol Letters: In case you're wondering...

Capitol Letters: The Craddick Rationale

Capitol Letters: Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy

Chron Blog: A view from the wrong side of the door

Chron Blog: Thoughts on the night

Chron Blog: I say it here, it comes out there

EOW: Otto Craddick application of Rule 5 Section 24

PinkDome: The Craddicktator

The Muse: Charlie McCarthy and Edgar Bergen Co-Speakers of the Texas House

And I'm sure there will be plenty more today. Stay tuned.

UPDATE Missed Postcards from the Lege, Craddick's Legal Rationale Released, Craddick ruling splits Centex supporters, and Rose talks about decision to leave Craddick camp.

Grits on the death of HB13

It's official - HB13 is dead. Grits explains what that means in practical terms.

The Governor already had authority to accept federal homeland security grants, so that doesn't change (his homeland security director Steve McCraw is the agent who receives and distributes those funds), and he certainly has authority to delegate that task to DPS or whomever he chooses. But this does mean a couple of things offhand:

1. A provision in current law (which would have been deleted in the Senate version of HB 13) limits the Governor's authority over the TDEX database and he may have to pull his thumbs out of the criminal intelligence pie anyway.

2. The Governor will still not be accountable to anyone for how he spends the $100 million given him by legislative budget writers for border security. But then, HB 13 would have only ratified his authority, not restricted it. This is a wash - no change from the status quo.

3. Because there is no accountability or oversight, it will be up to the media and nonprofit watchdogs to use open records to study how the governor spends pork barrel money legislators gave him. This will be a labor intensive task, one I hope the MSM will undertake with the same zeal they've covered the border during the election season.

If the Governor wanted to avoid the rightful criticism he faced over ham-handed political appointees mismanaging law enforcement resources like TDEX, he should transfer grant making authority to DPS. They in turn should be charged with funding projects that implement the state's existing, overall border security strategy, not just dole out pork like candy to border politicians with little regard for improving public safety.

Sen. Carona could still revive the bill with a 4/5 vote by stripping off all the Senate amendments, but at this point I hope the thing just dies. Better for now to monitor what the Governor does with his new border pork and start anew to rein in the whole mess 18 months from now.

I join Grits in saluting Rep. Lon Burnam for driving the stake through this sucker.

West 11th Street Park saved!

Assuming we do eventually get a budget passed, it looks like it will contain a provision to pay off the debt for the West 11th Street Park. Jeff Balke has the details. Major kudos to Sen. John Whitmire for making this happen.

UPDATE: Here's the Chron story.

"I'm so excited," said Councilwoman Toni Lawrence, whose district includes the park in the Timbergrove Manor neighborhood in northwest Houston. "I'll give (Mayor) Bill White all the credit in the world, because it started with him," when White announced last year that the city would contribute $4 million toward the purchase price of the land.

Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, inserted the funding for the park in the state budget for local parks grants. It was part of the overall state budget approved by House and Senate conferees Friday and scheduled for votes in both chambers this weekend.

"There has been so much effort to preserve this 20 acres for neighborhood parks," Whitmire said. "But all the stakeholders came up short. I saw an opportunity to solve the problem."

Preserving the land was important to Whitmire because he has represented the area for more than 30 years, as a state representative and senator.

[...]

Whitmire announced that he sealed the deal once the budget was voted on in conference committee and the report was printed.

"If I weren't confident about its chances, I wouldn't have made it public. I'm happy to be in a position to help those who worked longer and harder than I have on this project," Whitmire said. "It seemed like the natural thing to do."

Damn fine news. Kudos all around.

Cleaner cement for Dallas

Very cool.

The Dallas City Council voted late Wednesday to direct construction contractors to include the price of dry kiln-processed cement in their bid packages to the city. Cement produced in dry kilns generally produces less pollution than traditional wet kilns.

"This is a giant step forward for us to tackle our [nitrous oxide] problem. It's going to be the beginning of a national trend," Dallas Mayor Laura Miller said. "We can start buying from clean plants and make it an incentive for businesses to operate and build clean plants that we'll buy from."

The city staff will spend the next several weeks crafting rules for cement purchasing, said Mark Duebner, Dallas' director of business development and procurement.

Mr. Duebner estimates the city has 150 to 200 construction bids a year that would be affected by the change.

[...]

The mayor added that she'll urge cities involved in the Texas Cities for Clean Air Coalition - which has fought for the last year to prevent TXU Corp. from building new, traditional-style coal-fired power plants - to adopt similar cement-purchasing practices.

"We'll start to reach out to other cities soon to see if they're interested in joining us," Mr. Duebner said.

That coalition includes Houston. I look forward to hearing that we are following Dallas' lead on this.

One more thing:

Cement companies in nearby Midlothian could most be affected by the rule change, particularly Texas Industries, which uses one dry kiln among its five.

If this nudges the notoriously noxious Midlothian plants to change how they do business, that will exponentially increase the benefits of this plan. Here's hoping.

Is this finally it?

Well, something is going on in the House. It all started about an hour ago.

A short while ago, Rep. Jim Dunnam made a simple parliamentary inquiry. Would the speaker recognize someone for a privileged motion to vacate the chair? Speaker Craddick said no. Would that ruling be open to a vote to appeal it? Craddick said no.

Then all hell broke loose.

The House now stands at recess until 11 p.m. The parliamentarian Denise Davis has allegedly threatened to quit. The mood is very ugly here. And Tom Craddick may be witnessing his final hours as speaker of the Texas House.

The AP has a report.

After an evening of simmering discord, House members exploded with shouts of rage when Craddick announced that the chamber would stand in recess until 11 p.m. Friday.

He'd earlier called another recess to escape pointed questions about his handling of parliamentary issues. When he emerged from his office 40 minutes later, he ignored further interrogating from a man who has filed his candidacy to replace Craddick and quickly called for the two-hour break to a chorus of boos.

Angry House members stormed Craddick's podium as he hustled back to his office suite, refusing to answer questions from reporters.

Democrats trying to overtake the speakers podium were physically restrained by House sergeants-at-arms as they tried to grab the microphone.

[...]

To oust Craddick before his term is up, a lawmaker must make a parliamentary maneuver known as a motion to vacate and a majority of the House must vote in favor of it.

It's called a privileged motion, and Craddick must recognize a lawmaker before they're allowed to speak to the House to make such a motion.

The meltdown Friday started when Democratic Rep. Jim Dunnam questioned Craddick about the parliamentary procedure. Craddick made it clear that he would not necessarily recognize someone to make that request and he was adamant that his ruling could not be appealed.

A short time later, Republican Rep. Todd Smith of Bedford asked Craddick if he ignored the advice of parliamentarian Denise Davis when he made the ruling.

"I looked over and asked her and I don't know if she agreed or didn't agree," Craddick responded.

"Did you or did you not ignore the advice of Denise Davis?" Smith asked.

"It's a privileged conversation between the two of us," Craddick said.

The "further interrogation" was by Jim Pitts, and one of the Democrats trying to get to the dais was Rick Noriega. BOR reports that parliamentarian Davis has resigned, and that Craddick supporters are attempting to break quorum. The assistant parliamentarian may also resign.

Crazy, just crazy. Brandi Grissom, Quorum Report, and Capitol Letters are also following this, which is sure to go well into the night.

One thing to keep in mind: While the joint conferees have approved the budget, it will likely be Sunday before any members get it. With sine die on Tuesday Monday and a lot more business still to be conducted, the budget could wind up getting filibustered, which would force a special session. Who might do such a thing? Here's one possibility. Keep an eye open for this.

Oh, and we have one more candidate for Speaker. Hey, by now, the more, the merrier. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Too much going on. Here's more coverage from the DMN and the Chron. And lookie at the new parliamentarians. Nice to know the Speaker believes in recycling. For the insomniacs out there, check with BOR, QR, PinkDome, and In the Pink. Good night.

Senfronia for Speaker!

She did it before, and she's doing it again.

Throw Democrat Senfronia Thompson of Houston's stylish hat into the ring.

She was the first state rep to start the rumbling last summer when she filed her candidacy for speaker for this session - touching off the race that wound up captivating the entire Pink Dome on opening day, even though she was no longer a candidate by then. She started the momentum.

Ms. Thompson filed for speaker for the 81st session this morning, declining to join the army of male Republicans vying for a spot that may or may not open up this session.

And in a perfect world, a new Democratic majority in the House will carry her to the Speaker's podium. While any of the current alternatives to Tom Craddick would represent a step up, Speaker Thompson by far would be the best option.

The CHIP endgame

Capitol Letters says the recently-passed CHIP bill HB109 is still being monkeyed with by the Senate and David Dewhurst.

After collecting kudos Tuesday from the Texas Network of IAF Organizations (Dallas Area Interfaith, Valley Interfaith and so on), Mr. Dewhurst named Senate negotiators who are expected to strongly defend his pet idea of electronic eligibility verification.

Senate conferees include the only two senators who voted against the House's partial CHIP restoration bill: Republicans Steve Ogden, who voted "nay" in committee, and Jane Nelson, who opposed the bill on the floor. The team's leader is Waco Republican Kip Averitt, who favors a bigger CHIP but is unlikely to betray Mr. Dewhurst, even though the lieutenant governor dumped him as a budget negotiator this session to appease the right wing of the Senate's GOP caucus.

Most CHIP advocates, physician groups and hospitals who love the House-passed version believe Mr. Dewhurst has made income verification almost a fetish -- and is going to give us another Accenture-like fiasco, albeit much smaller in scope than the call centers that do eligibility screening for the major social programs.

If the Dewhurst plan passes, state social services czar Albert Hawkins will get a strong nudge to hire a private firm that does data mining to check on some families' incomes every six months -- even though parents would submit paperwork annually. Mr. Dewhurst says he's heard of three or four such vendors, though CHIP advocates are skeptical the techniques are proven -- and the expenditures would be worth it.

Clearly, the lesson we learned with Accenture wasn't expensive enough to leave a lasting impression.

Prediction: Mr. Turner could blow up the bill but won't. He's a Craddick D, which means he knows a thing or two about incremental gains. Mr. Dewhurst gets his way.

Oh, yes, conferees probably will narrow the range of families who undergo the electronic checking. Under the Senate version, families would be scrutinized every six months if their incomes exceed 150 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that is $30,975 a year. But Mr. Dewhurst probably signaled his true intentions on May 10, when he told reporters he was looking at three possible thresholds - 165, 170 or 175 percent of the poverty level. The next week, he reduced that to 150 percent, and all but admitted he was leaving Senate negotiators room to compromise. So "compromise" they will.

Watch for it. The CPPP has more on where things now stand.

Weakened toll road moratorium finally passes

This is definitely not what we thought we were going to get out of a toll road moratorium. It may be the best we could have done, but if so that's pretty sad.

Texas lawmakers struck a deal Thursday on transportation legislation that includes a two-year moratorium on private company toll roads, although the agreement does not satisfy anti-toll road groups.

House and Senate leaders reached agreement on a compromise plan that likely will reach both chambers for a vote on Saturday.

"What we've got is pretty good but maybe not perfect," said Rep. Wayne Smith, R-Baytown, who led the House negotiators.

The compromise legislation, Senate Bill 792, does not affect six road construction projects for the Harris County Toll Road Authority, and it also allows the Dallas-Fort Worth region to proceed with highways already in the pipeline. The moratorium prohibits two private toll road projects in San Antonio.

The bill also would avoid a veto override effort of another transportation bill, HB 1892. Gov. Rick Perry rejected that measure and helped develop the alternative plan.

[...]

Senate Bill 792 "is not only full of loopholes, but it makes things worse. (It) allows local authorities the same powers we were trying to take away from" state transportation officials, said Sal Costello, leader of People for Efficient Transportation.

The main problem with SB792 is the removal of the Kolhorst Amendment. I'll refer you to Eye on Williamson, who's been exhaustively following this, for the details - see here, here, here, and here. As he notes, Governor Perry could still veto this, and we could still have a special session on transportation. Scary thoughts, but there you have them.

Another reprieve for the Astrodome

Last week, I noted that State Sen. Kyle Janek had amended HB3694 to qualify the Astrodome hotel redevelopment project for some tax rebates, for the purpose of helping it to get financing, which has proven elusive so far. The amended bill has now passed the Senate and will go back to the House.

The legislation comes just in time for Astrodome Redevelopment Corp., the private entity seeking to transform the dome, which is counting on the future rebates to help it secure financing for the $450 million project.

The Harris County Sports & Convention Corp., which manages the county-owned Reliant Park, set a June 1 deadline for Astrodome Redevelopment to prove it has lined up financing.

As I said in the previous post, these rebates would essentially serve as a form of collateral for the loans. Given how soon the deadline is for proof of financing, I wonder if Astrodome Redevelopment has a deal contingent on this, or if they'll beg for an extension. If they don't get it, whoever comes after them will presumably have an easier time of it if this bill does pass. We'll see.

Is HB13 going down?

I'd almost forgotten about HB13 since it passed out of the House nearly three weeks ago. A much-amended version was passed by the Senate early this week, and apparently those amendments have left it open to attack.

Yesterday afternoon the ever-resourceful Fort Worth Democrat Rep. Lon Burnam unleashed three points of order on the governor's homeland security bill, HB 13.

[...]

Burnam hit the bill with two points on germaneness and one point on the fact it violated the two-subject rule. There is so much in the bill that has nothing to do with homeland security that it seems likely the points will be sustained. The bill's author Rep. David Swinford could try to get it sent back to the Senate to strip off their amendments but it seems a little late in the game. The Homeland Security Bill might be dead.

This would mean that the status quo remains and it would be up to the next legislature to wrest TDEx from the governor's hands. But it also gives folks more of an opportunity to have a real debate about how homeland security should be handled in Texas and what the appropriate role is for the governor in the mix.

There was some good work done on HB13 in the House, and it will be a shame not to see those things get implemented. But on balance, HB13 is a net negative, and its death will not be a shame. We'll see if this really is it.

(Unhappy thought: Would Governor Perry call a special session for this? HB13 was a priority for him. Ugh.)

UPDATE: Brandi Grissom has more.

RIP, statewide smoking ban

It's a goner.

Although Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Denton, may be holding out hope for her statewide smoking ban proposal until the Senate and House adjourn sine die, the Smoke-Free Texas coalition is admitting defeat.

The organization, which includes the American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and Texas PTA, this afternoon issued a press release saying that the smoking ban they'd been pushing has died in the Senate.

"Even as time expires this session for HB 9, Smoke-Free Texas already is planning to bring forward in 2009 another bill that would provide strong secondhand smoke protections for Texas workers by banning smoking in indoor public and work places," Kirsten Voinis, the group's spokeswoman, said in the statement.

Given that HB9 had been gutted in the House, it's not clear that a worthwhile bill would have made it out of the conference committee, or that it would have been passed if it had. Better luck next time, I suppose.

Anti-rail lawsuit details

After being denied the opportunity to break out the thumbscrews depose Metro executives without having to file a lawsuit, rail opponents went ahead and filed their lawsuit, as everyone and their dog knew they were going to do. Much of what's in this story is a rehash of what we already know, but there are a few pieces of new information:

The lawsuit, assigned to state District Judge Tad Halbach's court, was filed after state District Judge Levi Benton denied permission Tuesday for Scarborough's lawyers to take oral testimony from Metro officials to determine if there was basis for a lawsuit. Metro called that request a "fishing expedition."

The lawsuit says Taylor wants to question David Wolff, Metro board chairman; Frank Wilson, Metro president and CEO; and six high-level staffers of the agency.

[...]

Former Houston city attorney Gene Locke, representing Metro, said he also expects a "legal battle" but added that "the first round goes to Metro."

Although the suit says repeatedly that Metro should abide by 2003 resolution or "seek voter approval" of its current plans, Taylor also has said the resolution bars another such vote until November 2009.

Locke said that date applies only to a new bond referendum to fund the plan and not to the plan itself.

The lawsuit does not ask that the projects be halted until the matter is decided.

Locke said Metro is going "full steam ahead" on them.

The insistence on having another vote is both typical for this crowd, in the sense that they always want to have another vote because maybe the next one will finally go their way, and weird - if you follow their logic, what they're really demanding is a two-year moratorium on pretty much all current Metro activity. Given that, it's interesting that they haven't requested a temporary restraining order. I mean, by the time this sucker makes it to the Supreme Court, the entire 2012 plan could be built out. I'd guess they'll file for that once Metro makes its plans known for the Universities line. We'll see.

Get ready to say Good-bye to the River Oaks Shopping Center

The end is near for the River Oaks Shopping Center.

Preservationists gathered at a city hall trying to block the renovation of the historic River Oaks Shopping Center.

The shopping center is 70 years-old and for generations it has been a fixture on the edge of the posh River Oaks neighborhood.

Now Weingarten Realty has unveiled plans to renovate at least one section of the center. Preservationists suspect it is the first step toward rebuilding the entire center, including the historic River Oaks Theater.

"It would not prevent their demolition, but once again it would be a statement as to the value of these properties and reinforce it before city council, and that's really who we're playing to at this point," said David Bush, one of those working to preserve the shopping center.

Shoppers visiting the center today see many empty storefronts left behind by businesses that have moved out a section of the center.

And people who work in the Black-Eyed Pea, which has been located here for a quarter century, told 11 News they are closing their doors on Friday.

That would be today. I'll try to get some demolition pictures when it happens. Speaking of which, whatever was on the small lot immediately north of the center on Shepherd was bulldozed in the last week or so. Looking at the schematic of the new center here, I don't think that has anything to do with the upcoming renovation, but it's an interesting coincidence.

On happier preservation news, Matt Stiles gives an update on the effort to protect the Old Sixth Ward. It's still a ways off, but it's in progress and headed in the right direction.

Tron!

Awesome!

Gearing up for our 12th anniversary, Technology Bytes Radio is teaming up with The Petrol Station and St. Arnold Brewery to bring you Tron, the original geek movie, projected in all it's gigantic glory outdoors and on the back wall.

The event will be Friday, July 1st. and admission is FREE!

The movie should fire up around 9 PM but feel free to come on out anytime after 7:30 and join the crew of Technology Bytes for some brews and a very geeky evening.

If there's such a thing as geek heaven, then all in attendance will be in danger of being raptured immediately following the closing credits. Oh, and did I mention that one of the stars of "Tron" is the actress who played Lacey Underall in Caddyshack? What more could you want? I've gotta go to this.

We have TiVo again

Our replacement TiVo unit arrived on our doorstep late this afternoon. It's all set up now, so when Olivia comes home from school tomorrow she can see one of her beloved Noggin programs again. Of course, she won't have many choices yet, after only a day of recording, but it's a start.

The funniest thing to come out of this whole episode was Tuesday night, the day our original box died. We had given Olivia the bad news that she couldn't watch Diego or Jack because the TiVo was broken. She seemed to accept this with more stoicism than I'd shown, and after dinner when she usually gets to see her daily allotment of two shows she went upstairs with Audrey and me to play instead. This left Tiffany free to watch the NCIS finale as it aired, since we couldn't record it. About midway through, I had to bring Audrey downstairs so Tiffany could feed her. Olivia of course tagged along, and when she saw Tiffany watching TV, she exclaimed in the most accusatory tone of voice I've ever heard her use "Hey! You said TiVo was broken!" I lamely tried to explain the difference between TiVo and TV to her, then thought better of it and just hustled her back upstairs. This is the sort of thing they don't tell you about before you become a parent.

But all is well now, and I hope to catch the Lost finale off the Series II TiVo we bequeathed to my in-laws in the next few days. I'm on high spoiler alert till then.

More endorsements for Noriega

Melissa Noriega has racked up a bunch more endorsements for the June 16 runoff for City Council. Early on, she received the endorsements of Noel Freeman and Andy Neill. Earlier today, her campaign sent out a press release announcing the support of most of the remaining contenders: Sara Owen-Gemoets, Ivan Mayers, Kendall Baker, and Alfred Molison. And tomorrow, according to Miya Shay, she'll get the nod from the Houston Association of Realtors. Not a bad week for her.

As for Roy Morales, it's not been so good for him, thanks to that lawsuit filed against him by his sign maker. He did get an endorsement from Tom Nixon, but that's it so far. The remaining two candidates from the election, Anthony Dutrow and David Goldberg, have not announced that they are backing anyone in the runoff.

Still waiting to vacate

So all the pieces seem to be falling into place for that long-awaited motion to vacate the Speaker's chair. According to BOR, Republican Rep. Todd Smith has filed two resolutions that would allow for a secret ballot in the event a new Speaker needs to be elected. You may recall that this was the real fight back at the start of the session, since everyone feared retaliation in an open-vote election for Speaker. Will such a move fare any better this time? We may eventually see. Karen Brooks is following it as it goes. Greg, Eileen, and Inside the Texas Capitol have also weighed in.

On a slightly odd note, Rep. Robert Talton, who's been the biggest thorn in Tom Craddick's side all session, has spoken against the presumed motion to vacate. He then goes on to urge Speaker Craddick to step aside if such a motion is made anyway. Whatever.

Meanwhile, in the "when it rains, it pours" department for Craddick, he's been sued by a travel agent (more here). I'd ask "what next?", but I'm almost afraid to find out. Stay tuned.

Goodbye SB419, hello HB1919

The bad news is that SB419 did not make it through the House. The good news is that it's still alive as an amendment to another bill. Pete has an email from Sen. Eddie Lucio's office, which lays it out:

Unfortunately, like so many other good Senate bills, SB 419 was essentially "timed out" in the House and died. However, Senator Lucio was able to amend most of the language from SB 419 onto HB 1919 by Representative Todd Smith/Senator Leticia Van de Putte. HB 1919 requires specific treatment for individuals with traumatic brain injury. The Senate also amended language relating to mental health parity to HB 1919. Tomorrow, May 25th, the House of Representatives will decide whether or not to concur with these Senate amendments to HB 1919. Texas Association of Business and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights are both working hard to convince House members to oppose these amendments, so we have to work twice as hard to ensure members support them. We know there will be a few House members who will try to oppose the Senate amendments, but as long as we have a simple majority who support them, the current bill will remain intact with the early intervention amendments. We also have confirmation that Governor Perry will support the Senate amendments to HB 1919.

The best way for you to take action is to call your own State Representative and urge them to concur with Senate amendments to HB 1919. It would be helpful to explain to them why these amendments are important in terms of supporting Texas families and saving taxpayers money. Representative Smith's (HB 1919 author) office has been very good to work with and we do not recommend calling them at this time.

The really good news is that the ABA provision was added back along with the amendment to HB1919. Pete has the amended text for your perusal. Please contact your representative and ask him or her to support HB1919 as amended by the Senate. This is it, it's now or never. Thanks very much.

What about the red light camera bills?

And the other legislation mentioned in the sidebar to the strip club fee story is about red light cameras.

Red-light cameras

• Multiple bills: To formally authorize use of cameras to catch red light violators, regulate their use and require cities to share some ticket revenue.


• Status: Senate Bill 125, which would require cities to spend a portion of their red-light camera revenue on trauma care, did not pass the House. Lawmakers will try to work out differences in conference committee.

Someone is confused here, and I don't think it's me, but let's check. There was a flurry of camera-related bills introduced in February. In April, both SB125, which was the bill to limit civil fines from camera-recorded red light violations to $75 and to direct where some of those funds must go, and SB1119, which was the bill that authorized the use of red light cameras by cities, were passed by the Senate. In May, an amended version of SB1119 that inserted a sunset review of their effectiveness in two years' time, was passed by the House. That bill needs its differences worked out in conference, then to be passed again by both chambers, to be sent to Governor Perry. SB125, however, was placed on the General State Calendar on May 22 and apparently never emerged from there. Its only hope is to be added as an amendment to another bill; presumably, SB1119 would be the vehicle for this, but I suppose there could be other possibilities.

So that's my understanding, anyway. If I'm the one that's confused, I hope someone will point it out in the comments.

Is SB1317 dead?

The strip club fee story has a little sidebar on it entitled "Other bills of particular interest in the Houston area", which includes this tidbit:

Clean air

• The measure: To prohibit Houston and other cities from using city nuisance laws against plants outside the city limits that pollute city air.


• Status: Senate Bill 1317 did not pass the House. But it could be revived as an amendment to another bill.

Looking at the history of this bill, it's a little weird that it took two weeks to get from Environmental Affairs, the playground of Dennis "Dirty Air" Bonnen, to Calendars, from which it apparently never emerged. One can only presume that if the House had been working on a more traditional schedule - which is to say, had they been in session through the weekend - this one would have made it to the floor. Chalk this up as a victory for the anti-Craddick rebellion. Now let's keep an eye on amendments and hope for the best.

Strip club fee passes the Senate

I confess, I hadn't paid very close attention to Rep. Ellen Cohen's bill to raise money for sexual assault prevention by imposing a $5 per customer fee on strip clubs because I didn't think it would make it through. Clearly, I was wrong about that.

The measure, pushed through the House earlier by Rep. Ellen Cohen, would require the clubs to take a daily count of patrons and pay the state $5 for each one. Those records would be subject to audits from the state comptroller.

It would be up to the clubs to determine how much, if any, of the burden to pass on to the customers.

The fee is expected to raise $87 million over the next biennium -- $25 million of which would go toward a sex assault prevention fund. The rest would go to the Texas health opportunity pool, which is used to provide assistance to low-income people.

[...]

It's not clear how many establishments in Texas would be affected by the bill. Tax records in the State Comptroller's Office list 151 sexually oriented businesses that serve alcohol.

But some clubs that feature topless or nude performances do not serve alcohol and therefore are not on the liquor tax rolls.

The measure is moving through the Legislature as the city of Houston prepares to shut down sexually oriented businesses that operate near schools, churches, parks and one another.

"The source of revenue may come and go," Cohen said. "But it will not affect the original intent of the bill, to set aside the first $25 million for sexual assault prevention."

I wonder if the fiscal note on this one has changed in light of the recent unpleasantness in Houston. Seems to me the impact could be pretty big.

Speaking of our endangered local establishments, the Chron is calling on them to surrender.

Despite the definitive ruling by Judge Atlas, some owners are appealing to a higher court for a restraining order to stall city enforcement. Others have filed suit in state district court seeking to allow the businesses to operate at their current sites in order to recoup the owners' investments.

After the decade-long effort involving the support of three Houston mayors and a succession of City Council lineups, the ordinance clearly enjoys strong support from the majority of Houstonians and their representatives.

Whether one accepts or disagrees with the claim by ordinance supporters that SOBs create environments around them conducive to crime, communities across the United States have successfully regulated the businesses and set conditions for their operations. Houston has the right to do so, as well.

The fact that the businesses pay city taxes does not mean they should be immune from site restrictions. Once the businesses set up in legal locations, similar revenue likely would flow. In fact, the departure of some of the largest clubs from a valuable area near the Galleria might provoke redevelopment that would bring the city more tax dollars.

Rather than continue to wage costly and likely futile court fights to delay the inevitable, Houston SOB owners should drop their legal actions and find suitable properties for relocation. In return, city officials should work with club owners who commit to relocating in a reasonable period of time to avoid unnecessary arrests of innocent employees while the process is under way.

Does this ordinance "clearly enjoy strong support from the majority of Houstonians"? I suppose it must, given the lack or any organized resistance to its enforcement (anyone out there remember Americans for Legal Freedom? Those were the days) and the lack of waffling from City Council members, who undoubtedly would be looking for a way to walk this back if they were hearing it from their constituents. The one place I've seen strong disagreement with this is in the utterly non-representative comments to Chron stories on the subject. There's a good one to this editorial, from EdT, who notes that the ordinance really only makes sense in the context of zoning, which Houstonians do not support. Beyond that, I can't say this assertion is off base.

The talk about "once the businesses have set up in legal locations" is laughable. The whole reason there's been a decade-long court fight is because every one of these clubs was in a legal location back in 1997. City Council changed the rules on them, and they - quite justifiably - took to the courts for relief. Had there been some form of grandfathering, this matter would have been settled years ago.

And once they do move to a spot that's now legal, who's to say that will be the end of it? Empty space is a rare commodity in Houston. What happens when an apartment complex gets built 1400 feet from the new Men's Club? And who's to say that Harris County won't adopt similar rules now that Houston has taken the legal burden off of them? From the perspective of a club owner, I'm not seeing a good reason to stop fighting, because as far as I can tell there's no assurance that relocating will bring them across the finish line. If this ordinance really is about regulation and not elimination, addressing this issue would at least be a decent starting point.

Budget deal reached

With all the other legislative activity going on as the session winds down, I'd almost lost track of the one thing the Lege must do, which is pass a budget. They're almost there, according to the conference chairs.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, said early this morning that lead negotiators have agreed on a two-year state spending plan that will total about $152 billion.

The deal will avert a threatened veto of education spending by Gov. Rick Perry by addressing changes he sought in university funding, said Ogden, R-Bryan. He and House Appropriations Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, met Wednesday with the GOP governor.

Perry has sought incentive funding for higher education to boost graduation rates; urged the drastic reduction of funding for special item initiatives, which aren't tied to enrollment; and sought a change in the budget format so he can more freely use his line-item veto power.

The governor has complained that the current budget format would force him to veto a campus's entire funding to get at spending he doesn't like.

Ogden said the deal puts in an additional $100 million for the higher education incentives sought by Perry. The overall bill pattern isn't changed, but some special funding items are shifted so that Perry can strike them if he likes, Ogden said, while adding, "I hope he doesn't veto any of them."

We'll see what it looks like when it makes it out of the conference committee. For what it's worth, Sen. Ogden is predicting easy passage. Stay tuned.

Aaron and Bonds

Hank Aaron says he won't watch Barry Bonds break his record.

Aaron doesn't plan to see the milestone homer in person, wherever it might happen.

"No, I won't be there," he said.

Asked why, Aaron said: "I traveled for 23 years, and I just get tired of traveling. I'm not going to fly to go see somebody hit a home run, no matter whether it is Barry or Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig or whoever it may be. I'm not going anyplace. I wish him all the luck in the world."

I'm fine with this. Hank Aaron doesn't owe anyone anything. He can be as gracious as he wants to be or not to be. Anything on the polite side of being a jerk is acceptable, and he's nowhere near the jerk line here.

On the other hand, this is all wrong:

Fay Vincent has this advice for Bud Selig: Stay away! Vincent said the man who succeeded him as baseball commissioner should not be in the ballpark if and when Bonds hits his 756th home run to break Aaron's career record.

"He has every right to say: I'm willing to congratulate him but I don't honor him by presence," Vincent said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press during spring training.

"I think if nothing changes ... I would say to Bonds: Because you haven't told us what you did, because we assume and because we believe you cheated and because you haven't helped clean baseball up, we will recognize your record but we will not honor you," Vincent said.

Hogwash. If that's what Fay Vincent really thinks, then good riddance to him. I subscribe 100% to the King Kaufman solution:

Go to the game.

When Bonds gets to home run No. 753 or so, you get on the plane, go to wherever the San Francisco Giants are, and plant yourself in the front row for every game until he hits No. 756. Then you congratulate him, shake his hand and head for the exit.

You don't have to give a speech extolling his virtues -- which would be a very short speech indeed: "Dude sure can hit!" You don't have to give a speech downplaying the record and saying we really can't be sure what it means because we don't know all the facts, or one that condemns Bonds as a cheater but explains that your hands are tied, there's nothing you can hang on him yet, or one that tries to explain away the roughly two decades when you and the other owners ignored the steroid issue.

All you have to do is stand up in the front row, call Bonds over, shake his hand, say, "Congratulations" and walk up the aisle. You're free to go. You can even go to your own house if Bonds breaks the record in one of the six games the Giants play in Milwaukee between June 18 and July 22. Bonus.

Selig has to go because otherwise he's sending the message that Bonds is hitting illegitimate home runs and setting a new, illegitimate record. Is that baseball's official stance? "Our product is bogus"?

Not that such a thing would be completely foreign to the Budster, but one hopes that he's gotten past such urges. Hank Aaron is a private citizen, and he's free to do as he chooses. Bud Selig, God help us, is the official representative of Major League Baseball. He has an obligation, but luckily for him he can think of it as strictly a ceremonial one if he needs to. He can consider it as a ribbon-cutting if he can't find any pomp in this circumstance, but he needs to do the job he's there to do. To do anything else makes it de facto policy, and that deserves a lot more input and debate than what it's been given so far. Besides, going to the games and being a minimal presence will generate less publicity than not going will. Just a guess here, but I think that's probably what Bud would prefer. The choice is clear.

WiFi woes?

Dwight notes that EarthLink is rethinking its municipal WiFi commitment.

Following a quarter in which it posted a loss of $29.96 million broadband provider EarthLink said it is reviewing four of its Wi-Fi deployments in Philadelphia, Anaheim, Milpitas and New Orleans before deciding if it wants to take on any new projects.

The pause for EarthLink could just be momentary. Or it could signal that the push for municipal Wi-Fi deployments could be losing steam if one of it's biggest proponents starts to rethink the whole venture.

EarthLink is "not yet able to establish that comfort level" that the investments are really profitable, Kevin Dotts, EarthLink's chief financial officer told the AP.

Dotts said they will be looking at factors like topography; concentration of households; and alternative revenue opportunities to determine where they might want to continue building. It's likely he said that the company will only pursue large projects in the future such as Chicago.

I'm sure Houston counts as a "large project", for which they're already committed. We'll see how (or if) their review affects what they do here.

A satisfying driving experience

Houstonist has a question for you: "What is the most satisfying driving experience in Houston?" I'd call it a toss-up between going eastbound on Memorial from 610 to downtown, especially once you get past the last traffic light just before Shepherd, and westbound on Allen Parkway from the exit off I-45, either to Shepherd/Kirby or just to Montrose. The latter sometimes serves as a nice alternate route home for me when 45 is backed up all the way to Conroe, so it gets extra "satisfaction" points. What do you think?

One more step towards independence for the Woodlands

Back in December, a deal was struck between the Woodlands and the city of Houston to take future annexation off the table in return for financial considerations. That deal depended on the Lege passing bills to make it happen. That hurdle has now been cleared.

Lawmakers on Tuesday approved the last bill necessary for the master-planned community north of Houston to pursue a new form of governance.

The bill enables The Woodlands to expand the boundaries of its existing special district to collect sales and property taxes throughout the entire community -- a move that could possibly lessen the property tax burden on residents down the road.

Another bill signed last week by Gov. Rick Perry enables The Woodlands to enter into a groundbreaking regional partnership agreement with Houston, giving the community of more than 85,000 an opportunity to incorporate in 2014, if it choses.

Together, the legislation pushed by The Woodlands lawmakers, Sen. Tommy Williams and Rep. Rob Eissler, both Republicans, will give residents what they have desired for a long time: The right to determine their own future without fear of annexation.

[...]

The Woodlands still must wait for a couple of more steps before moving ahead full throttle.

The bill that unanimously passed the Senate Tuesday, with minor amendments, must go back to the House before being sent to the governor for his signature. The Houston City Council must first approve the regional agreement drafted in December by Williams and Houston Mayor Bill White. Also, The Woodlands residents must approve the special district expansion in a November election.

If the expansion gets the green light, the new district called The Woodlands District would replace the Town Center Improvement District and serve as an interim form of governance until 2014, the year the community would be released from Houston's boundaries.

The district also would have an elected board and would execute the regional partnership agreement with Houston.

Williams and White secretly crafted the deal to avoid a nasty boundary war similar to the one Houston had with Kingwood more than 10 years ago. Houston's future boundaries extend into Montgomery County and cover the majority of The Woodlands.

Under the draft agreement, Houston would agree to release the community from the city's future boundaries in 2014 and, in exchange, The Woodlands would pay make an intial payment of $16 million and estimated total of $29 million over 30 years to help fund regional transportation and park projects.

The 2014 date is when a 1999 moratorium agreement between Houston and Woodlands officials expires. The pact protected The Woodlands from annexation.

I don't expect any of the remaining items to present much of an obstacle. I presume that the concerns that Houston lawmakers raised have been addressed as well. At this point, I think the biggest sticking point is what to call the new residents of the soon-to-be City of The Woodlands. But I'm sure we'll work that out soon enough.

Dewhurst gives up the pursuit of HB218

Good.

It appears the Legislature will not pass a voter identification bill that Republicans desire and Democrats loath as Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst sent ailing Sen. Mario Gallegos home Wednesday night.

Gallegos, recovering from a liver transplant and potentially in danger of his body rejecting the replacement, has stayed in the Capitol despite his doctors' advice to remain in Houston.

The Democratic lawmaker is the swing vote in determining whether the bill comes up for debate.

"I sent Mario home," Dewhurst told reporters.

That means the lieutenant governor has no plans to call up the contentious legislation. Doing so would certainly trigger a filibuster by Democrats and kill scores of bills.

The Senate must tentatively approve House bills by midnight. Legislation that doesn't pass before the deadline is dead.

Thank you, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst. Sen. Gallegos thanks you as well.

He said he wasn't going to do it, but the emotion of the evening got the better of him.

Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston asked for and received a personal privilege to stand and thank Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and the Senate for agreeing not to consider the Voter ID bill.

"As a human being to another human being, I appreciate it, I don't mind telling you," Gallegos said.

[...]

Gallegos said he was sincerely moved by the consideration shown him by a Senate that last week was angrily split over House Bill 218, which would require voters to present identification before casting ballots.

"I'll be back and if you want to fight this battle again, we'll fight it, but with a healthy Mario Gallegos," he said, before receiving a standing ovation.

That is the most-deserved standing O of the year. Sen. Gallegos, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for all you did this session. Enjoy all the yellow roses that have been sent.

For posterity, here's Sen. Gallegos' op-ed on voter ID and why he chose to stand and fight. I'm reprinting it beneath the fold for future reference.

Why right to vote, without an ID, is worth fighting for This lawmaker counts his grandmother among reasons

By STATE SEN. MARIO GALLEGOS

In my community in Houston, thousands of first- and second-generation Americans came of age in the "greatest generation." They volunteered to protect our freedom in World War II. Many who came home had to fight to build a life for their families and exercise the rights they earned with their blood and tears.

As a firefighter, I was trained to protect their lives and property. As a state senator today, it's the least I can do to honor their sacrifices by being in Austin to protect their right to vote.

Every nonpartisan, academic study on the impact of voter ID laws in other states shows they suppress voter turnout among the elderly, low-income citizens, Hispanics, African-Americans and the disabled. But I don't need a study to know why voter ID proposals like House Bill 218 are bad; I just have to think about my grandmother.

My grandmother came from Mexico, played by the rules, became a citizen and earned her right to vote. She didn't have a driver's license, but she had her voter registration card, went to the polls where the workers knew her, and voted. If the voter ID law were in effect, I'm not sure she or others like her could have voted.

This year, close to 120 burdensome voter identification proposals were introduced in state legislatures across the nation. Not one of them has passed yet, and I want to make sure Texas isn't the only state to pass one. For many folks, a voter ID requirement doesn't sound like a big deal, but it would prevent many eligible voters from voting. Many elderly voters don't have a driver's license. Others who are disabled or work two jobs don't have the time, money or ability to get an ID card or documents they would need to vote. And new voter ID requirements would create confusion and long lines at the polls that would discourage many from voting.

When more people vote for American Idol contestants than vote for president, we should make it easier for people to vote, not harder. Voter ID proponents say it's necessary to combat "voter fraud" and raise the specter of "illegal aliens" voting, but no one has documented a single case of "voter impersonation" that HB 218 would solve. And common sense tells us noncitizens are not going to risk deportation by voting.

The bottom line is that voter ID is about politics, not fraud. In a 2004 election contest for a Harris County state House seat, a Texas House committee chaired by a conservative Republican found charges that hundreds of noncitizens voted were false. The Bush Justice Department's "Voting Access and Integrity Initiative," which directed U.S. attorneys to prioritize alleged voter fraud cases, resulted in only 24 convictions from 2002 to 2005. And the U.S. Election Assistance Commission found "that the accusations regarding widespread fraud are unjustified."

Voter ID laws passed in Georgia and Missouri were struck down by the courts, which concluded that the cost of obtaining the ID and necessary documents amounts to a 21st century poll tax.

In my community, there are veterans and people like my grandmother who earned their right to vote and shouldn't be forced to pay the modern day version of a poll tax. They are the real heroes in this story. I'm in Austin because it's my job to protect their right to vote.

Anti-rail lawsuit ruling

We have ourselves a ruling in the anti-rail "lawsuit" that was filed a few weeks ago.

A judge today denied a Richmond Avenue merchant's request to make Metropolitan Transit Authority officials testify about their light rail and Bus Rapid Transit plans, even though she had not yet filed a lawsuit against the agency.

Plaintiff Daphne Scarborough's attorney, Andy Taylor, said he will now file such a lawsuit -- which he had earlier described in state District Judge Levi Benton's court as "full-blown nuclear war."

"We're going to see this thing all the way to the Supreme Court," Taylor said.

Bring it on. There was no way that this crowd was ever going to stop short of a lawsuit, so this doesn't even count as a bump in the road. Let's settle this once and for all. More to come soon, I'm sure.

Senate passes CHIP bill

Well, HB109 passed yesterday and that's a good start, even if there's room for improvement.

The Texas Senate on Tuesday agreed to loosen some enrollment restrictions for children in the state's low-cost insurance program for working poor families, allowing their families to renew their coverage once a year instead of twice.

The proposal would reverse several changes the Legislature implemented to the Children's Health Insurance Program in 2003, when the state faced a $10 billion budget shortfall.

The bill would require electronic income checks every six months for families at the top of the income eligibility scale. State officials would only contact families whose income appears to have risen beyond the program's limits, Sen. Kip Averitt said.

"Most of the families will never even know that it ever happened," said Averitt, R-Waco.

Except for those that get thrown off, of course. Let's just hope that Accenture isn't involved in this process. I'm not the only person thinking along those lines, either.

Rep. Sylvester Turner, the bill's House sponsor, said he wouldn't accept the Senate's changes because that version would only add 100,000 children to the CHIP rolls. The House version would add about 30,000 more kids, he said.

"I think we can do better and I think the kids deserve better and I'm going to, along with the House conferees, fight for better," said Turner, D-Houston, referring to the committee of lawmakers from both chambers that will work out the differences between the bills.

House and Senate budget writers approved almost $90 million for CHIP last week. That's enough to cover the changes made by the House.

[...]

The bill was a disappointment for advocacy groups that favor the House's version.

Barbara Best, executive director of the Children's Defense Fund of Texas, said she fears the state will have as many problems with this computer system as it has had with other social services programs.

"After the disastrous performance of the private contractor Accenture, this is not the time to institute a complicated new eligibility check that relies on untested technology," Best said in a statement.

Has anyone thought about the procedure for appealing the result of that eligibility check? Maybe I should take a step back and ask if there even is a way to appeal if you think you were incorrectly ruled ineligible. Surely there must be, right?

Anyway, I presume Rep. Turner will be on the conference committee. We'll see if he can get his version of the bill across the goal line.

Rose and Lucio

Well, we've made it through another day without an official motion to vacate the Speaker's chair. It makes sense that it would happen after last night's deadline for passing bills on third reading, but until it actually happens, I and I'm sure other folks will have a feeling of apprehension about this. We had a chance to take out Tom Craddick at the beginning of the session, and we failed. It feels like there have been many openings in the past few days to take a second shot at it, but none were used. I just hate the thought that this could be all buildup and no payoff.

On the other hand, this time around more Craddick allies are publicly abandoning him. It seems to me that Craddick has no more carrots to offer anyone who might be wavering now. He's got plenty of stick to wield, in the form of his $4 million campaign war chest, but how effectively can he use that if enough people tell him to buzz off? Nobody can win a fight on that many fronts, right?

I don't know. But I do know that every defection makes me feel better about the potential end of this session. And with that in mind, I want to echo what Vince is saying about the two Democrats to jump off the USS Craddick, Patrick Rose and Eddie Lucio III.

While some may be tempted to say "it's about time," or "it's too late" for the Rose and Lucio defections from the Craddick camp, we believe the time is always right to see the light.

Lucio and Rose each no doubt had their reasons for siding with the Speaker early in the session. Whatever their reasons may have been, the fact remains that they have realized that Republicans and the Craddick Administration have a different definition of "bipartisan" than Democrats (and, for that matter, the rest of the world) have.

What Lucio and Rose did today was not without risk. Both have assured themselves of Republican opponents well-funded by Craddick and his allies. Further, should we be unfortunate enough to be forced to endure a Republican majority in the next session or, God forbid, another Craddick speakership, Rose and Lucio would face proverbial back-benching.

Regardless of when one makes the decision to come to the right side of an issue or a movement, it's a decision worthy of some praise. The bottom line is that they did the right thing.

Too, the defection of these two may serve as a sign to other Craddick Democrats that the time is now for House Democrats to unite under their full strength for at least the last days of the Session.

I agree completely. You can't get people to come over to your side if you berate them when they finally do so. Yes, I would have preferred to have had these two gentlemen on our team from the beginning, but they're here now, and I hope they're setting an example for the others. A thousand times better to be Rose and Lucio than Dawnna Dukes. Where will the rest of the Craddick Dems go?

UPDATE: Stace joins in.

UPDATE: Burka and EoW add their takes on Craddick's ability to punish defectors.

Heck of a job, Joshie

Obviously, I don't actually care who will win the Republican nomination for President. Having said that, if I were a John McCain fan, I'd shudder in horror at this news.

Josh Robinson-State Field Director [for South Carolina]

A graduate of Texas A&M University, Josh comes from Houston, Texas after working on a number of Congressional, State House, and State Senate races. Additionally, Josh has spent time at RNC Headquarters in the Department of Grassroots Development.

If that name sounds familiar, it's because the last campaign Josh Robinson worked for was Martha Wong's. Along the way, he called the Texas ParentPAC a "fringe group", gave a bogus explanation for using clumsily-altered campaign signs, and of course oversaw the release of the worst campaign ad ever.We know how well all that went. Let me just say I hope Robinson goes from this campaign to that of the eventual Republican nominee, so he can do for him what he did for Martha and will do for McCain.

Super Bowl XLV to be in Arlington

Congratulations to the North Texas Cowboys for their successful efforts.

The new Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington will host the 2011 Super Bowl, the National Football League announced Tuesday.

NFL owners, in a secret ballot, chose North Texas over bids from Arizona and Indianapolis.

The game is not only expected to turn the world's attention to the Dallas area - nearly 140 million people watched all or part of this year's Super Bowl, played in Miami - but also to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefits to North Texas cities and businesses.

Yes, yes, we've heard that before. I'm just surprised no one had a specific number at hand to use in a quote.

Bill Blaydes, chairman of the Dallas City Council's Economic Development and Housing Committee, said he's uncertain what the game's overall economic effect will be, "but having your city on TV screens for 30 straight days leading up -- you can't pay for that kind of advertisement."

See what I mean? How totally wishy-washy. Here, help yourself to these numbers. They'll be as valid for Dallas North Texas in 2011 as they were for Houston in 2004.

This comment on the Rice fan forum greatly amused me.

If ESPN's Sports Guy didn't enjoy his time in Houston for SB XXXVIII, then I can't wait for his columns about one in Arlington. As I recall his chief complaints had to do with the general lack of a big central party scene. There were plenty of parties, but he thought there was no place like South Beach or the French Quarter that essentially exists for that purpose. So things were spread out. Well I think that activities in the Metroplex are likely to be even more spread out. His other complaint was the Houston weather. We had one of those cool, damp, grey weeks. It was not bad at all, but it wasn't exactly "Chamber of Commerce" weather either. DFW could have great weather. Or they could get nailed with an ice storm that would make travelling on the freeways a huge headache.

Amen, brother. I can't wait to see how he'll whine about how all the free entertainment he's being paid to attend is just so inconvenient for him to get to.

Rockets hire Adelman

He's a retread, but as retreads go Rick Adelman is perfectly serviceable. I'm still not exactly sure how exactly the wheels came off of the Jeff Van Gundy bus, but given that they did, we could have done far worse. Hope you have better luck in the playoffs than Van Gundy did, Rick.

Richard Justice has a fairly measured take of the situation. While I tend to agree with him that the root cause of the Rocket's plateauing is more one of personnel than coaching, I have to quibble with this:

[Rockets owner Les] Alexander's problem is that he has some bad ideas about what wins in the NBA. After four years of listening to Van Gundy preach rebounding and defense, Alexander apparently wants more points and more excitement.

He might be hoping that more points will lure fans into the expensive seats at tipoff. Never mind that these NBA playoffs have again proved rebounding and defense win.

All those high-flying teams -- Phoenix, Golden State and Denver -- are watching San Antonio and Utah slug their way through the Western Conference finals. Of the NBA's 13 highest-scoring teams, just one -- Utah at No. 6 -- is still in the playoffs.

This is a bit disingenuous, since one of those high-flying teams got hosed by the league in the aftermath of Robert Horry's Australian-rules-football foul on Steve Nash in Game 4. Had the Suns been at full strength for Game 5, they might well be the ones going against Utah in the conference finals now. To be sure, Justice's point is correct in general, and Phoenix does rebound and play defense well. But those things are not incompatible with a high-powered offense (see, e.g., Lakers, Showtime era), and to ignore the external factor that helped knock the Suns out this year is just wrong.

This year's hurricane plans

Whether this hurricane season will be active or not, local authorities are planning for the worst.

Harris County officials said Monday they are as prepared as they can be for hurricane season, which begins June 1.

The key question, they said, is whether local residents have taken appropriate precautions.

"The government can only do so much," said Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, who is facing his first hurricane season as the county's chief executive. "The first person you must turn to is yourself. Individuals have to make sure they're prepared."

Area residents must recognize whether they live in one of four zones, delineated by ZIP codes, that might be placed under a mandatory evacuation order because of a storm surge, officials said.

An estimated 300,000 people in Harris County live in the surge zones.

The map is here (PDF). Note that the vast majority of the mandatory evacuation areas are outside of Harris County. Indeed, while 300,000 people sounds like a lot, it's less than ten percent of the total population.

On a related note, anyone remember the executive order from last year that mandated a single "incident commander" for each of the state's 24 regions to be in charge of things like hurricane evacuations? And remember the response from local officials, which did not please the Governor? Well, SciGuy remembers, and he gives an update on how things look today. Check it out.

Time for the annual "Very Active Hurricane Season" forecast

Stop me if you've heard this one before.

Government forecasters called for a busier than normal hurricane season Tuesday.

National Weather Service forecasters said they expect 13 to 17 tropical storms, with seven to 10 of them becoming hurricanes.

The forecast follows that of two other leading storm experts in anticipating a busy season.

The likelihood of above normal hurricane activity is 75 percent, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

"With expectations for an active season, it is critically important that people who live in East and Gulf coastal areas as well as the Caribbean be prepared," said Bill Proenza, director of the national hurricane center in Miami.

As SciGuy says, the hurricane prediction season is lasting as long as the actual hurricane season itself. Given that the first predictions for this year were made last December, that's more truth than jest. Note that in the table SciGuy put together, we have this apparent outlier, which suggests we'll have a fairly quiet year. What do you think? Place your bets and we'll see at the start of the Hurricane Prediction Season for 2008.

Anti-abortion bills die

RIP, SBs 785 and 920. Good riddance to you both. More here, plus a full timeline of SB785's curious life here.

"Not if, but when"

Rep. Fred Hill, the most recent entrant into the Great Speaker Sweepstakes of 2007 (okay, second most recent), says it's just a matter of time before the long-anticipated motion to vacate the Speaker's chair is made.

Hill said if no one else made a motion to vacate House Speaker Tom Craddick, then he would. But he added that he didn't think he would have to -- that another upstart House member would. If the motion to vacate is successful, Hill also said he expected House members to nominate numerous speaker candidates, including Craddick. A candidate must win a majority of votes to claim the speakership, so the votes could go to more than one ballot.

"The membership of this body is very unhappy," Hill told a gaggle of reporters. "I thought Tom would change. The bottom line is things are not changing."

Hill said that a majority of the House had turned against Craddick.

Rumors are zipping around the House floor that a motion could come as early as tonight. Craddick's been working the floor so hard, he might need a new pair of shoes before the session ends. The question is, will he need a new desk too?

Much more from Hill is here. Ominously for Craddick, he's now lost the support of two Democrats:

Rep. Patrick Rose, D-Dripping Springs, can no longer be counted in Craddick's column.

Rose and Rep. Eddie Lucio III met in a tense meeting with Craddick Tuesday afternoon. Afterwards, word swept the floor that the Democrats, two of the 15 that helped elect Craddick in January, had defected.

It added to the perception that a motion to vacate the chair could come tonight.

Lucio, a first-year legislator, confirmed tonight that he told Craddick he supports removing him as speaker. He said afterward he has no preference on who replaces Craddick.

"I respect the speaker, I respect his family," Lucio said. He said he took heat from colleagues at the start of the session for voting for Craddick's re-election as speaker, but he did so "based on a clean slate."

Since then, Lucio said, the House has proved "more divided than ever. In order to have a Legislature that works together... there has to be a change."

"Tom Craddick has been very nice to me," he said. "Unfortunately, this is something that has to take place."

Puts a bit of a dent in the "nicer Tom Craddick" thesis, doesn't it? Rose was quoted in QR saying "I respect the Speaker and his family but I believe the House has to be governed from the middle." I'll drink to that. Do I hear a motion on the floor? BOR has more.

RIP, SB785?

I sure hope so.

Sen. Florence Shapiro's abortion reporting bill has hit a major snag in the House -- a point of order that has forced House sponsor Geanie Morrison to delay the bill three separate times. Latest ETA is 5 p.m. -- but considering how many times it's been pushed back, and the number of riled up folks who head to the podium each time the bill is SUPPOSED to come up, I'd say the chances of passage without a major brawl are slim. Heck, at this rate, the bills proponents would be lucky to get a chance at a brawl.

Shapiro's bill won't be the only one to die today, but it will be one of the more deserving of that fate. I know, I know, don't count your chickens and all that, but I'm feeling hopeful.

Dewhurst: Senate will pass CHIP bill today

I sure hope so, that's all I can say. It's taken way, way too long.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said that a plan to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program will clear the Senate today.

"Of course this bill is going to pass today," Dewhurst told a group of advocates from the Network of Texas IAF Organizations.

The Senate's version of the plan will add about 100,000 children to CHIP by loosening restrictions put in place during a budget crunch in 2003. It would eliminate a 90-day waiting period and allow children to stay in the program for a full year instead of having to apply every six months.

However, unlike the House-approved version, the Senate version would have the eligibility of many families checked after six months. This would ensure that the state remain "true to the standards of eligibility," Dewhurst said.

If only this fetishization for followup extended to other items.

The House-approved version of the plan would add about 33,000 more children to CHIP than the Senate-approved version, according to the Health and Human Services Commission.

But Dewhurst said there is no set number for how many children would be added.

"I am committed, I have always been committed, that any child that is eligible ought to be on the CHIP roll," he said to advocates' applause.

The House and Senate differences will likely be reconciled in a conference committee. Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, said both the House and Senate versions would be an improvement over the current rules.

"People in our state are having to die because they can't afford to live," he said.

Here's a listing of the differences between the House and Senate bills. Let's get this done, folks.

A short rant about TiVo customer service

Tiffany called me earlier today to say that our less-than-six-months-old Series 3 TiVo was rebooting itself over and over again. Not having anything better to offer, I suggested she call TiVo customer support to see what could be done. She did, and we got the bad news: Our unit was fried, and we needed to get a new one.

That's about the last thing you want to hear the day before the season finale of Lost gets aired, but the news got worse from there. TiVo has what has to be one of the worst exchange policies I've ever encountered. We had two basic choices: We could ship them our malfunctioning unit, and when they received it they'd send us a replacement, or we could put a deposit down on our credit card for the full purchase price of a Series 3 ($799) and they'd send us the new one within 24 hours. By UPS ground, mind you. We'd still have to send back the bad box, at which point the charge would be credited. Well, within ten days, anyway.

After pitching a fit and talking to a supervisor, the best they could do for us was to give us two-day shipping and a return shipping label for the dead TiVo. We still had to put down a deposit to get the new one shipped right away. Which is what we eventually settled for, after giving everyone we spoke to a prolonged venting of our dissatisfaction.

It's bad enough that the timing of this couldn't be worse. Never mind sweeps week, Tiffany had come to depend on the TiVo to keep her sane amid the daytime TV wasteland while she's home with Audrey. We can at least still receive basic cable dirtectly through the TV, though since we don't watch non-kid-friendly stuff while Olivia is awake, that's going to put a crimp in things; I offered to spirit Olivia out of the house for an hour after dinner so at least Tiffany could watch the season-ender of NCIS. We've also lost a boatload of shows that were saved on the Series 3's much larger disk drive, including the most recent Sopranos (which I fortunately will be able to see via HBO On Demand), three episodes of Waking the Dead, which was going to help bridge the gap between this season and summer shows like The Closer, and loads of Jack's Big Music Show, Go, Diego, Go!, and Miss Spider, which is what Olivia gets to watch (two shows a day max).

What really hurts is that we just love TiVo. It's a lifestyle changer, which gives us a lot more control over our own leisure time. I can cope with the loss of the convenience for a few days, even if it is a bit disquieting to see just how much we've come to depend on it, but the customer-unfriendliness of their exchange policy has put a big damper on my enthusiasm for them as a company. I wouldn't be so upset if this were an older unit (note that our almost four-year-old original Series 2, which we gave to my in-laws when we upgraded, is still working fine), but this thing is practically brand new. I expected much better than this, and it's a huge disappointment to realize otherwise.

I don't have a point to this. I'm just mad and felt like venting, and hey, that's why God gave us blogs, right? I'm still mad, but I'll get over it. Thanks for indulging me.

Four! Four for Speaker!

And Brian McCall throws his hat in the ring once again. I'm beginning to think Burka is right about the full list of contenders. Where's Gib Lewis when you really need him?

UPDATE: Holy guacamole, we're up to five now. How many will there be by the time all is said and done?

Darned Good Questions Department

I haven't followed the ins and outs of SB966, also known as the he Free Flow of Information Act or the Shield Law, which was killed on a point of order last night. (Vince has all the background if you're interested.) There's something to why it was killed, however, as Karen Brooks demonstrates.

It was being carried by one of the House's mainstay conservative Rs, Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, from a neighboring district, who votes the same way she does 99 percent of the time.

So, I'm not sure what problem she had with him that she wanted to kill a bill that was extra important to him. If the Riddler had issues with Rep. Too Cool for School or his bill, she didn't tell him a thing. Her strike came out of the blue.

[...]

Since she didn't tell Corbin why she didn't like it, and she only asked one question from the back mic, that's all we've got to go on.

"Corbin, are you aware that our district attorney, Chuck Rosenthal, is very opposed to this bill?"

Then ka-blam. She gets all Talton on him.

Here's a question: Is the Riddler aware that the DAs opposed Jessica's Law? I believe she might have been.

Here's another question: Is she aware of why the DAs opposed Jessica's Law? Because they say it would make it harder for them to win cases/close crimes/etc. Same reason they oppose the shield bill. Both bills. Same reason.

Third and final question: Why are the DAs right about journalists but wrong about abused children?

.... Yeah, I don't have an answer for that one, either. I'll let you know if I figure it out.

Emphasis in the original. In case you're unclear, the House sponsor of "Jessica's Law" was, of course, Debbie Riddle. Like I said, darned good questions.

UPDATE: Chron story is here. Geez, a comma?

Speed trap camera bill goes to Governor Perry

HB922, a bill by Rep. Vicki Truitt (R, Southlake), which would ban the use of cameras to catch speeders and which passed the House earlier this month, has now passed the Senate and is on its way to Governor Perry's desk.

[Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, the bill's Senate sponsor,] said the cities of Rhome, northwest of Fort Worth, and Marble Falls, northwest of Austin, have used cameras to create "speed traps." He said motorists don't learn they've been nailed - on a criminal charge -- until a notice arrives in the mail from a Rhode Island tech company days or weeks later. That robs a driver of ability to argue with the cop who stops him, Mr. Carona said.

Note that making it a criminal charge differs from the use of red light cameras, where a civil citation is issued. And speaking of which:

Sen. Mike Jackson, R-LaPorte, asked Mr. Carona if he'd agree to expand the bill so it also would outlaw using automated cameras to cite people for running red lights. Mr. Jackson said Garland was one of the first cities to do that. Separate legislation to kill the practice has been bottled up this session, he explained.

"Will you take my amendment?" he asked Mr. Carona.

"Oh, no sir," Mr. Carona replied. "I don't mind dating you but I don't want to marry you."

Heh. As we know, a related bill is in conference committee. We'll see what happens with it.

TRO granted in Farmers Branch lawsuit

No surprise here.

A federal judge on Monday issued an order halting enforcement of a voter-endorsed ordinance preventing apartment rentals to most illegal immigrants, a day before the ban was to take effect in this Dallas suburb.

U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay wrote that only the federal government can determine whether a person is in the United States legally.

Instead of deferring to federal officials, Farmers Branch has created its own classification to determine which noncitizens may rent an apartment, the judge ruled, also noting that Farmers Branch appeared to have taken federal regulations regarding housing benefits for noncitizens and used them to define who may rent an apartment in the city.

"The court recognizes that illegal immigration is a major problem in this country, and one who asserts otherwise ignores reality," Lindsay wrote. "The court also fully understands the frustration of cities attempting to address a national problem that the federal government should handle; however, such frustration, no matter how great, cannot serve as a basis to pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law."

The ordinance was to take effect Tuesday, more than a week after voters approved the regulation by 68 percent, according to unofficial election results.

However, "public approval of the Ordinance, by itself, does not guide the court as to whether the Ordinance complies with the law," the judge wrote.

Hopefully this is the first step to getting this law thrown out. Vince has a press release from MALDEF and the ACLU on the ruling. Meanwhile, a second lawsuit addressed an ancillary issue:

The lawsuit seeks the creation of single-member districts, in which a city council member is elected to represent a specific section of the city. Both large and small cities with diverse racial makeup use the system, said Rolando Rios, the attorney leading the suit.

Activists say if the method had been in place, at least one Latino candidate would have been elected to the council and could represent the group. All five council members are white men.

As we know, it was a lawsuit from the 1970s that led to the implementation of single-member City Council districts in Houston. Given the recent actions by Farmers Branch City Council and that city's substantial Hispanic population, I'd say the same setup there is long overdue.

The taxes of sin

Frankly, I'd have thought the strip clubs would have contributed more in taxes than this, but apparently not.

During the 10 years the city has fought in court for tougher rules regulating Houston's strip clubs, it has also accepted at least $6 million of their money.

That's the city's cut from nearly half a billion dollars in beer, wine and liquor sales inside the dozens of topless clubs that have operated since 1997, according to state tax records examined by the Houston Chronicle.

That was the year the City Council adopted a strict new ordinance regulating the clubs and other places defined as sexually oriented businesses. Among many new rules, the law prohibits them from operating near schools, churches, parks and one another.

[...]

From one perspective, the sales figures and resulting tax revenue show a thriving industry popular among some residents, tourists and conventioneers.

"The numbers reveal the degree to which this is something that people patronize," said John Weston, a Los Angeles-based attorney leading the preparation of a federal appeal on behalf of Houston's cabarets. "There's a huge infusion of capital that the city jeopardizes by trying to close these cabarets."

The opposing view is that the money reflects a tiny fraction of the city's overall operating funds -- a $600,000-per-year slice of money the city can afford to sacrifice to limit sex businesses.

"I always have concern when the government is collecting revenues from businesses that aren't in the best interests of the constituents," said City Councilman M.J. Khan, who likened the cabaret proceeds to lottery revenue.

"I can honestly tell you that the city would not lose any services if these revenues were eliminated," he said.

I'm sure Council Member Khan is correct about the bottom line impact if these tax revenues were to disappear, though who knows what other effects may be felt. On the other hand, I'm also sure the city is happy to collect sales taxes on things like cigarettes, alcohol, fatty foods, and any number of other not-in-the-best-interests-of-the-constituents items. And are we running all the city's investments through the Timothy Plan, or are we more interested in a values-neutral, profit-centric approach? I mean, if some kinds of money are dirty, then please tell me what's clean, so we can only derive our revenues from those things. Seems to me that's the logical conclusion of Khan's premise.

The topless clubs pay 14 percent of their gross mixed-beverage sales to the state. The city and Harris County each get a 10.7 percent cut of the state's take, state and local officials say.

County officials could not be reached for comment on the possible loss of revenue from topless clubs within the city.

As with the city, I'm sure it's not that big a line item in their budget. It'd be interesting to know if they do have an opinion about this, especially since they weren't asked.

Campos smacks Lopez

Yesterday, I discussed John Lopez's column from Sunday, in which he introduced a racial angle to the effort by the Houston Dynamo to get a downtown stadium built. Among other things, Lopez said:

[Astros owner Drayton] McLane, whose reputation among minority groups has been less than stellar, recognizes the benefits of backing the plan go beyond the tangible.

This drew a strong response from Astros fan and political consultant Marc Campos:

If minority groups have a problem with Drayton McLane, that's news to me. It's also news to minority leaders in H-Town. I don't know which minority groups Lopez was referring to, I would certainly like to know.

It is kind of BS for Lopez to take this shot at Drayton. Lopez forgets that Drayton worked with the minority community to make sure minorities participated in a major way in the construction of the ballpark. Minorities and women also make up 30% of the food service investment at Minute Maid thanks to a deal Drayton and minority leaders struck in 1999.

[...]

Lopez' shot at Drayton is irresponsible and downright mean. I know a lot more about minority groups than Lopez. I know whose reputations are "less than stellar" among minority groups. Drayton McLane is nowhere near that list. Drayton McLane is respected by many minority leaders in H-Town and Drayton McLane respects H-Town's minority community. Lopez would be better off writing about why the Chron doesn't have any Latino news columnists. Drayton doesn't deserve to be dissed on this. Shame on John Lopez.

I don't claim to have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that if Lopez is going to make a claim about Drayton McLane's standing among minority groups, he ought to cite some evidence for that. Search through the Chron's archives, or pick up the phone and get a quote or two, it's not that hard. Maybe he's right - Campos didn't cite any evidence for his assertion about McLane, either - but why should we take his word for it?

On a side note, I disagree with the notion that downtown is the wrong location for Dynamo Stadium. If it's going to be in Houston and not Sugar Land or the Woodlands, then I think downtown is fine. It will be both more convenient and more attractive than Robertson Stadium, where I presume they're at least drawing enough of a crowd to be viable. I just think they ought to pay for that downtown stadium themselves.

Byron Cook tells Craddick to resign

We may not get that motion to vacate today, but this is pretty stunning.

COOK: "I'm a Republican who has supported Speaker Craddick three times, but I cannot and will not support him again...I've been threatened...and I've been told as recently as Saturday and am told they are recruiting an opponent to run against me...so be it."

"I will not yield to tyranny, bullying, or threats. This body will not realize its potential as long as [this] is to be tolerated."

"The budget is being stopped...and exploited for political gain."

[...]

"I regretfully tell you that your actions may force this House to take an historic action...I beg of you to step down."

"Please don't put this body through 18 months of Hell."

"Release us and submit to the will of the House."

"This is a battle worth fighting. For me, it may mean my political career, but it's worth it."

Wow.

Lawsuit against Roy Morales

Miya Shay reports:

Roy Morales, who is in the run-off race for City Council at large seat against Melissa Noriega, is being sued by a fellow Republican. And not just any Republican, he's being sued by the Bush/Cheney sign guy! Michael Franks, who is a big time R party printer for a gaggle of politicos, printed $1,700 worth of signs for Roy's LAST council campaign. A loss and a new election cycle later, Morales still hasn't paid him! At least according to court documents. There's a second suit filed as well, for alledged broken promise of giving Franks additional business.

Both suits are in small claims court - Miya has links to the case information for each. Both were filed last week - I'd heard rumors that there was legal action impending against Morales, so this is not a big surprise to me. Make of it what you will.

Oh, and one more thing:

You didn't think I'd let the opportunity pass, did you? Early voting begins June 4 (that's the Monday after Memorial Day) for the June 16 runoff. Your vote will likely count for 50 people this time around, so get ready.

And then there were three

Rep. Jim Pitts, who ran against Tom Craddick for Speaker in January, is once again a candidate.

Pitts, R-Waxahachie, said he filed for speaker "in case a motion to vacate would be successful."

Pitts said he doesn't plan to make the motion himself to vacate the speaker's chair, and he doesn't know if such a motion will be made tonight, as some speculate.

And Pitts starts his campaign off by complaining about Craddick's tactics and the effect they've had on House business.

He claimed that Craddick, R-Midland, has been meeting with members one-on-one and offering them favorable treatment in the budget if they stick with his leadership.

"The budget is not finished because of the deals that are being made," Pitts charged. "We're going to pass the budget the last day with a lot of questions."

Craddick could not be reached immediately for comment, but his press secretary denied the charge. "That is not happening," said press secretary Alexis DeLee.

Pitts said lawmakers had informally agreed to set aside $3 billion to pay for school property tax cuts in the next biennium, 2009-2010, and is worried that much of it will be given away in connection with the speaker's race.

You know, I almost can't say that's a bad thing. Almost.

Gardner Selby and Vince hear that a motion to vacate may be made tonight, but Harvey Kronberg is hearing later in the week, like Thursday. Karen Brooks says that Speaker Craddick has been keeping the House on a relaxed schedule in part to stave off that motion to vacate, while also working the room to firm up his position; Clay Robison notes the same thing. Burka thinks the insurgency is losing steam.

What next? Who knows? Whatever I type now will be obsolete by tomorrow anyway, the way things are going. At least now I know that I'm not the only one to have the Go-Gos in mind when blogging about this. So I've got that going for me.

The effect of SB785

SB785 is one of the save-my-job anti-abortion bills that the House will be debating today. It will require that statistics about judicial bypasses granted for underage women seeking abortions without parental notification be published on a county-by-county basis instead of statewide. This will have the practical effect of ensuring that the exact number of bypasses granted by some judges is public knowledge, since as this spreadsheet shows, many counties in Texas have only one or two district judges in them. This in turn would presumably subject these judges to political backlashes - or worse - unlike their big county brethren. I personally prefer that judges make their decisions based on the law and not external considerations such as these, but this will spell the end of that. But hey, maybe it'll help Tom Craddick hang on as Speaker. And that's what really counts, right?

Sen. Gallegos back in Austin

I'm in awe. After hearing the news that Sen. Mario Gallegos had to return to Houston last week due to his health, I thought for sure we'd see that stupid voter ID bill again. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the level of commitment he's shown in fighting it.

Ailing state Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, has a hospital bed set up in the sergeant's office -- about a 100 feet from Gallegos' Senate chamber desk, Monday so that he could help block a contentious voter ID bill from debate.

"I'm hurting. I'm hurting," Gallegos said a few minutes ago as the Senate went into session.

[...]

In the meantime, Sen. Bob Deuell, R-Greenville, is monitoring Gallegos' health. Deuell is a physician.

Just amazing. And he's committed to seeing it through to the end.

Mr. Gallegos plans to remain until at least noon on Wedesday, 12 hours before the deadline for all bills to be passed out of the Senate. "They should be able to filibuster it for 12 hours," he said, referring to other Democratic opponents of the measure.

As Eye on Williamson says, David Dewhurst could put an end to this today and let Sen. Gallegos get back to Houston, where he can properly take care of himself. What really matters to you, Lt. Gov. Dewhurst?

In case you need a reminder, "voter fraud" is a scam, and "solutions" for it like HB218 have the real world effect of preventing eligible citizens from voting. Which, sadly, is the desired outcome for its proponents.

Finally, if you haven't voted in the True Courage Awards yet, consider this a ringing endorsement for Sen. Gallegos in the Texas State Senate category.

Vacating, all I ever wanted

Burka says that a coup against House Speaker Tom Craddick "seems inevitable now", and he ponders how it might play out.

Let's assume that the process of vacating the chair has been set in motion by a resolution. Then what?

Rule 5, Section 36 says, "Questions of privilege shall have precedence over all other questions, except motions to adjourn." Therefore, the only way to slow down the proceedings is for a pro-Craddick member to move to adjourn. This would have to be voted on by the House, and it would become to this speaker's race what the Geren amendment was in January: a proxy vote.

[...]

Let's assume that the motion to adjourn fails. (If it succeeds, Craddick has proven that he has the votes to defeat the insurgency.) The vote will smoke out the insurgents and both sides will know where every member stands. The Craddick forces will try to find a way to stall a vote on the resolution so they can turn around some votes. If that fails, I can think of only one play left: to break the quorum. Pro-Craddick members might start drifting off the floor. The irony of this development is apparent: Craddick would be employing the same strategy that the "Chicken D's" (Craddick's phrase) used against him during the redistricting battle of 2003.

You're wondering if I have something in my archives about that, right? Of course I do, though interestingly it has to do with an attempt by the Dems to make a motion to adjourn sine die at an opportune moment during one of the special sessions on redistrcting, not with the Ardmore Exodus. I strongly suggest turning your personal Irony-o-Meters off for the next couple of days, lest they overload.

If the session shuts down without the House adopting a budget, there would have to be a special session, and Craddick would be back in the saddle as speaker.

The very last thing I want is a special session, because it would provide an opportunity for all kinds of mischief and malfeasance. Much as I want to see Craddick taken out, I fervently hope that those who think they might try are committed to seeing it through, which among other things making sure they have enough rebels to parry any parliamentary hijinx. I don't know what's coming next, but I feel a bit like I do in anticipation of the Lost season finale - everything is going to change, we just don't know how yet. Stay tuned.

Ten years of camera phones

I have four things to say about this story about the ten-year anniversary of the invention of the camera phone:

"It's had a massive impact because it's just so convenient," said Philippe Kahn, a tech industry maverick whose other pioneering efforts include the founding of software maker Borland, an early Microsoft Corp. antagonist.

"There's always a way to capture memories and share it," he said. "You go to a restaurant, and there's a birthday and suddenly everyone is getting their camera phones out. It's amazing."

If Kahn feels a bit like a proud father when he sees people holding up their cell phones to snap pictures, there's good reason: He jury-rigged the first camera phone while his wife was in labor with their daughter.

"We were going to have a baby and I wanted to share the pictures with family and friends," Kahn said, "and there was no easy way to do it."

So as he sat in a maternity ward, he wrote a crude program on his laptop and sent an assistant to a RadioShack store to get a soldering iron, capacitors and other supplies to wire his digital camera to his cell phone. When Sophie was born, he sent her photo over a cellular connection to acquaintances around the globe.

A decade later, 41 percent of American households own a camera phone "and you can hardly find a phone without a camera anymore," said Michael Cai, an industry analyst at Parks Associates.

1. Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away, I worked for a company whose product worked with both Borland and Microsoft C (this was even before C++ was widely available for PCs). My first real exposure to computing religious wars was Borland versus Microsoft. And even back then, most people took the anti-Microsoft position. Not that it would help the value of your Borland stock today, of course.

2. I am in awe of someone who could jerryrig such a thing while in the maternity ward. I can only imagine what his wife thought of it.

3. I think I bought one of the last non-camera phones ever made.

Market researcher Gartner Inc. predicts that about 589 million cell phones will be sold with cameras in 2007, increasing to more than 1 billion worldwide by 2010.

Mix in the Internet's vast reach and the growth of the YouTube generation, and the ubiquitous gadget's influence only deepens and gets more complicated. So much so that the watchful eyes on all of us may no longer just be those of Big Brother.

"For the past decade, we've been under surveillance under these big black and white cameras on buildings and at 7-Eleven stores. But the candid camera is wielded by individuals now," said Fred Turner, an assistant professor of communications at Stanford University who specializes in digital media and culture.

4. When I was a kid, there was an invisible-to-me army of people who knew my parents or grandparents and could recognize my face. Never knowing for sure at any given time that I was not being watched helped keep my behavior more or less in line. As such, I'm as prepared for the world of ubiquitous cell phone cameras as anyone can be.

Selling out

Point.

Well, as I watch Elvis Costello hawk Lexuses (Lexi?) on TV, I wave goodbye to one of the last holdouts from the pre-80's era. It's now assumed that if you were a rock star with any integrity from this era, you now have no problem using your song about "social revolution" to sell jeans, trucks and Carnival cruises. The Who, Dylan, The Clash, Iggy Pop, Mellencamp, Sting...the list is long and depressing. The only holdouts remain Neil Young and Bruuuce, who turned down $12 million to use Born in the USA for Chevy.

Counterpoint.

In this kind of environment, the idea that a musician who works at all with a major label or sells a CD through a store like Tower or had concerts with middleman ticket sellers who charge exorbiant fees could somehow remain pure from "selling out" by refusing money to have her music in commercials became utterly silly. Shilling for Coca-Cola is a minor sin compared to any of these other practices, where you're working with the industry to bilk fans of their hard-earned cash directly. In addition, a lot of indie rock types have been openly sympathetic to the fan complaints about pricing, and have sought alternate avenues to distribute their music that are a lot more affordable. In that situation, selling a song to Target for their commercials is seen not as selling out to the man, but a way to earn money through your music so you don't have to sell out to the real villains in the music industry. Hearing the Go! Team on a Honda commercial doesn't affect me in the way that paying $20 for a CD would, and furthermore, I know that the money they earned from the commercial gives the band leverage against their record company in terms of deciding how to tour and distribute their music, which results in cheaper ticket prices for me, if nothing else.

Put me in Amanda's camp, with a lean towards Atrios. What do you think?

You got yours, now we get ours

John Lopez lays out an argument that I'm sure we'll hear more of regarding a possible downtown stadium for the Houston Dynamo.

The unwritten message in the letter of agreement with the city:

The predominantly white fan base that follows the Astros got theirs. The largely white and black fan base of the Rockets got theirs, too.

What about Dynamo fans? What about the fan base that has been estimated at roughly 45 percent Hispanic, 45 percent white and 10 percent Asian?

Interesting that he skipped over the Texans, who were the first to "get theirs". I'm not even sure what to make of that, other than perhaps it didn't fit into his narrative.

The appearance of this argument doesn't surprise me. It was certainly used by the Astros and the Rockets, in various forms. Putting the racial aspect aside, I'm not sure how well it would work for a team that's been here for all of a year, and which draws a smaller crowd to its games. On the other hand, they wouldn't be asking for as much, so maybe that mitigates it to an extent. Certainly, the more AEG puts up in the deal, the better that will look.

I want to see what the parameters of a deal with the city are. I don't want to spend public money on this project, but maybe there's a way of doing this that could persuade me to change my mind. I don't think so, but I won't know for sure till I see what's being offered.

As the session winds down

The Chron talks about how the 80th Lege has been in many ways an aimless session, one that (like the 79th) will not provide much for Republican incumbents to campaign on. While I generally agree with the piece, there are a couple of points to make:

Freshman Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, said [Lt. Gov. David] Dewhurst has been harmed this session by the appearance of being a 2010 candidate for governor.

"That has impacted our process and colored his decisions on a number of occasions. I can't imagine what 2009 is going to be like," Patrick said.

While that is certainly true, it's also true that the 2010 GOP primary candidate that Dewhurst has (supposedly, at least) been preparing for is none other than Sen. Dan Patrick himself. As such, letting him have his say here without at least acknowledging that is rather like having James Carville pontificate on the state of the Democratic Presidential primary without disclosing who he supports.

I should note that while the common wisdom is that Patrick wants to run for Governor in 2010, Paul Burka thinks he's positioning himself to run for Dewhurst's spot instead. There's a lot of sense in that, though I think Danno is the type who'd rather be in the top spot. Still, worth keeping in mind. Democrats better be prepared for that possibility.

Craddick fended off a re-election challenge in January. In an effort to calm ill will toward him, he became a nicer Tom Craddick. This emboldened his opponents and freed some of his allies. The result was that bills carried by his top lieutenants died on the House floor or had major amendments put on them.

I dunno about the "nicer" Craddick. Maybe he's twisted fewer arms in support of bad bills, but he's still completely marginalized his opponents, both in terms of committee assignments and bills on the calendar, he's been as capricious and arbitrary with point of order rulings as ever, and I at least can't think of a single example of Craddick doing something "nice" that he didn't have to do. Maybe the relative lack of arm-twisting makes it look like he's nicer, but I say the weight of evidence is against him.

Two more days to pass legislation in the House (where we still have this to deal with), three more in the Senate (I'd originally said two, but it's three). Hold on to your hats.

SB419 on the calendar

Pete reports that SB419, the bill that would greatly help autistic children and their parents (see here, here, and here for more), is on the House calendar for next week. It's not the bill that it should be (thanks ever so much, Rep. Larry Taylor), but it's still worth passing. One last time if you can, please contact your State Rep and ask him or her to support this bill. Thanks very much.

More money for parks

I like this.

As development drives up land prices and neighborhood leaders beg for more green space, city officials are preparing to create Houston's first dedicated source of public funds to acquire land for parks.

An ordinance that would require developers to set aside land for parks and green space or pay a fee to purchase parkland should be ready for review within a few weeks, Marlene Gafrick, the city's planning and development director, said Friday.

Houston historically has relied on private donations for new parks. A sustained public funding source is needed to ensure that parks are accessible to the region's rapidly growing population, according to a report published last month by the nonprofit Center for Houston's Future.

[...]

While some details of the Houston ordinance must still be worked out, the concept enjoys widespread support among park advocates, neighborhood groups and developers, said Andy Icken, a deputy city public works director who is working on the ordinance.

"In general," he said, "everyone agrees we should do this."

Houston has certainly done well with private donations of parkland - think Hermann and Memorial, in particular. Obviously, you can't count on that sort of thing, and parkland won't materialize if there isn't a mechanism for creating it. I applaud this proposal, and look forward to its adoption.

One more thing:

"If we just keep building, building, building on every square inch of green space, then there is no quality of life," said Lorraine Cherry, who is leading a fundraising effort to preserve a 20-acre park in her northwest Houston neighborhood.

That would be the West 11th Street Park, which really needs the funds. I don't think this new fund is intended for situations like this, but if it were a possibility, it would be nice.

True Courage Awards

The True Courage Action Network wants to know who you think should receive their first True Courage Awards:

We are honoring the best efforts of legislators and advocates who have shown courage relating to TCAN's mission to restore strong ethical standards, government transparency, and electoral reform and voter protection during this legislative session. You have nominated those who have advanced this good cause, and while there are many truly deserving of recognition, we present the most nominated.

Read more about the nominees here. Among the choices in the Advocate category are Texas Progressive Bloggers, which is quite a nice honor for us. There's also a section for naming things like "Best example of bipartisanship", "Funniest moment during this session", and "Biggest waste of time", so go click over and tell them what you think.

Gallegos' absence and the last days of the session

With Sen. Mario Gallegos back in Houston due to his health, what happens now with HB218?

Ailing Sen. Mario Gallegos' absence from the Capitol leaves his fellow Democratic state senators one vote shy of a procedural tool they can use to block legislation.

Republicans did not take advantage of the situation Friday to force a vote on a contentious bill that would require voters to present identification, which Democrats have blocked.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, said senators told him they "didn't want to take it up today out of respect for Senator Gallegos."

But he was noncommittal about his plans for next week, saying he believes a vast majority of Texans support the idea.

"We'll see," he said. "I would like to see it passed."

Dewhurst has shown his true nature this session, so take him at his word here.

Democrats won't disclose how they will respond if Dewhurst brings the voter ID bill up for debate.

Options could include breaking quorum or filibustering, either of which would kill other legislation in the waning days of the session.

"I'm not going to expose our strategy," said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio, chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus. "We're looking at this on a day-by-day situation. Certainly, the Senate realizes that we have really important bills and work that needs to get done."

She warned that bringing up the voter ID bill would distract from the Senate's need to finish work on budget, transportation, border security and air quality bills.

I figure everyone will be prepared to filibuster on Monday. I'd have to do a thorough search of my archives, but I recall there were some changes made to the rules for establishing a quorum in the aftermath of the Ardmore/Albuquerque exoduses (exoda?), so I don't think that strategy will be reused. But I could be wrong, and I don't doubt that everyone is poring over the rules this weekend to see what all the options are.

Honestly, if Tuesday the 22nd is the hard deadline for passing bills, then filibustering has got to be the weapon of choice. Worst case scenario, you need to talk for a maximum of 48 hours, and you've got ten people who can each take a turn. That would kill every other bill as well, but that's the reason this is such a potent threat. What's more valuable to David Dewhurst? We'll find out on Monday.

One more thing:

[Sen. Gallegos] had diagnostic surgery Friday, and has not gotten the green light from his doctor to return to Austin.

Gallegos received a liver transplant earlier this year and missed most of the legislative session. He has been in Austin for the last couple of weeks, against his doctor's wishes. Gallegos pleaded with his doctor to delay the procedure he had Friday until next Thursday, after the deadline for passing bills.

"This was a matter of medical urgency that the doctors weren't willing to put off for one day," said Gallegos' spokesman Harold Cook, who said the senator was being checked for infection in or around his liver.

"It's been frustrating to him that he hasn't gotten better faster. There's a reason his doctors didn't want him up here. His body isn't ready yet."

Sen. Gallegos was at Melissa Noriega's election night party last Saturday. He looked good. I took an opportunity at that time to shake his hand and thank him for everything he's done this session. I'd like to take this opportunity to do so again.

Barry and the Babe revisited

In the course of arguing that Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig should attend Giants games as Barry Bonds makes his final assault on Hank Aaron's home run record, King Kaufman makes the following assertion:

Hank Aaron, by the way, can turn his back on Bonds. He has said he won't be there when Bonds breaks his record. If I were Aaron's friend I'd say, Either go to the games and shake Bonds' hand or come out and say you believe Bonds is a cheater, rather than hinting at it by claiming to have a golf date on whatever day Bonds hits No. 756. But Aaron's not the commissioner of baseball. He can stay away just to pout over his record falling for all I care.

Every record comes with mitigating circumstances, a context that could call its legitimacy into question. It might be the quality of the opposition, the helpful or hindering effects of a home park, the run-scoring environment of the era or a hundred other things, including, now, the prevalence of drugs, including steroids but also including the amphetamines that were eaten like candy by ballplayers during the career of Hank Aaron.

For all the Jackie Robinson Days and Negro League Throwback Uniform Days baseball plays host to, it's very rare for anyone around the game to say, "Sure, Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs, but he never had to face Satchel Paige or Bullet Joe Rogan or Nip Winters, he never had Oscar Charleston race into the gap and turn even one of his 506 doubles into an out." And don't forget how the New York Yankees built a ballpark specifically designed for Ruth to hit home runs in.

While I can't ever recall anyone claiming that Babe Ruth hit a disproportionate number of his home runs at Yankee Stadium, the perception that he must have done so is easy to understand. They do call it "The House That Ruth Built", after all, and it was a pretty cozy 295 feet down the right field line back in the day. Of course, it quickly ballooned out to 350 feet in "shallow" right field, and 429 feet in deepest right field, a fact that often gets overlooked in this kind of discussion.

But never mind. Did Babe Ruth take advantage of the dimensions at Yankee Stadium, like the way Mel Ott made the even shallower right-field porch at the Polo Grounds his personal launching pad? As it happens, Jay Jaffe answered that question three years ago, and he took Hank Aaron's stadium situation into account as well.

The Braves moved from Milwaukee to Atlanta in 1966. According to Ballparks.com, Milwaukee County Stadium's fences at the time they left were (left to right) 320'- 362'-402'-362'-315', standing at 8'4" to 10' tall. Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium's fences were further back to begin with (325'-385'-402'-385'-325') but they stood only 6' tall. The park underwent some rejiggering in the team's first few years and stood at 330'-375'-400'-375'-330' by 1969. While those dimensions made the field larger than Milwaukee's, the Atlanta stadium's altitude of 1,000 feet above sea level placed it as the highest park in the majors until the Colorado Rockies came along, and its impact on homer totals gave it the nickname "The Launching Pad."

In his nine years in Atlanta, Aaron hit 192 homers at home, 145 on the road. But besides the home runs, the park wasn't especially a hitter's park, at least until a few new NL ballparks came into play midway through that string.

Hmmm. What about The Babe?

Despite the "House That Ruth Built" tag applied to Yankee Stadium, he actually had more homers on the road than at home. Here's a quick breakdown of the Bambino's career by phase:

Years    Park    HHR  RHR

1914-19  Fenway   11   38

1920-22  Polo     75   73

1923-34  Yankee  259  252

1935     Braves    2    4

TOT              347  367

In other words, Ruth lost a few home runs early on when he played at Fenway, and was basically the same player on the road as he was at home while he was with the Yankees. So much for that.

Kaufman's right: Every record has a context to it, and you can't say how a player in one era and set of circumstances might have done in someone else's shoes. I happen to think Babe Ruth would have been Babe Ruth whenever he played, but all I have to back that up is my own personal feelings. But if we are going to talk about contexts and circumstances, let's take all of them into consideration. It makes for a more productive discussion that way.

Meet the BARC boss tomorrow

From my Inbox:

ATTENTION ANIMAL LOVERS

The Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care (BARC) and their Chief, Kent Robertson, would like to invite YOU, to a meeting this Sunday, MAY 20TH AT 11 AM in the admin. building meeting room at BARC. Kent wants to talk to you TAXPAYERS about BARC's past year and BARC's future years, and get your input. All volunteers, past, present, or future are welcome. All adopters and fosters, past, present, and future are welcome. All residents and taxpayers are welcome.

The Bureau of Animal Regulation and Care (BARC) enforces city ordinances that encourage annual rabies vaccination and licensing of pets and requires that all dogs are confined in a yard or on a leash. BARC investigates animal bites and encourages spaying/neutering to control the unwanted animal population. The kennel is open to the public 11:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and noon to 4 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday.

You can get directions and see photos of all of the available animals by going to http://www.houstontx.gov/health/BARC/index.html. The adoption fee is only $55 which includes the animal's vaccinations, spay/neuter surgery and micro chipping.

Note that if you're the least bit susceptible to cute animals, beware of going to the kennel unless you really need another dog in your house. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you, I'm just saying. Thanks to Andy Neill for the heads up.

Toll road moratorium in limbo

HB1892, the toll road moratorium vehicle that was sent to Governor Perry despite his veto threat and warnings of a special session, will be officially vetoed today. HB792, the compromise toll road moratorium that's supposed to mollify Perry while still slowing down the Trans Texas Corridor, was supposed to be passed out of the House today but has been delayed till Monday. Which leaves it vulnerable to a Perry veto if he chooses to be a hardhead about it, but that's how it goes. Ben Wear and Eye on Williamson have the details.

UPDATE: As expected, Perry vetoes HB1892. Via EOW, who notes that Perry hasn't said he'd sign HB792.

CHIP expansion finally nearing

Still not the best we can do, but better than what we've got.

Budget negotiators agreed Thursday to spend as much as $89.5 million to expand CHIP, which is for children in families that don't qualify for Medicaid and can't afford private insurance. The spending is contingent on passage of House Bill 109, which has already passed the House and was revamped before being OK'd Thursday by the Finance Committee.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, was the only "no" vote on HB109. He has voiced concern about the cost of 12-month eligibility.

The Senate committee version, which has a $58.7 million price tag, would cost less than the House bill's $73.6 million. If approved by the full Senate, the bill will return to the House for consideration of changes.

[...]

"What we'll be doing in this bill is repairing some of the damage done in 2003" that resulted in a decline in enrollment, said Averitt. "After all is said and done, over 100,000 children are going to be able to participate in this program again."

The Finance Committee's extra check of income eligibility would apply only to those at the upper levels of CHIP eligibility.

Averitt said it would be a "non-intrusive" electronic income verification that "clients probably won't even know is happening."

Rep. Sylvester Turner, the Houston Democrat who championed HB109 and is a budget negotiator, said updated state figures show the House version would expand coverage to 135,000 more children, while the Senate changes would cover only 101,000 more.

"We've already compromised in the House," Turner said. "I don't think the children need to get caught up in this red tape and bureaucratic maze. These kids need insurance now."

Like I said, better than what we've got, but not the best we can do. At some point after the session, I'll have to go back and review the "Democrats for Real Reform" agenda to see how their results matched up to their wish list. For now, I'm just glad that this sucker finally has the goal line in sight.

As I understand it, there are some riders already in the budget that would help undo some of the arcane HHSC rules about CHIP that have contributed to its recent drop in enrollment. I don't have all the details, but the bottom line is that more than one facet of the CHIP question is being addressed. At long last, we're regaining some of the ground that was lost in 2003. Hopefully, in the next session, we can make some actual progress.

Anti-abortion bills postponed till today

Well, we may or may not get another floor fight over HB218 in the Senate, but just to ensure that today won't be a quiet Friday in Austin, those anti-abortion bills that mysteriously appeared on the House calendar shortly after the announcement of Jim Keffer for Speaker were postponed till today. The Observer blog has the details. Stay tuned.

Revisiting Heflin-Vo

I looked through some of my Election 2004 archives as I was searching for the Andy Taylor links in my previous post, and doing so reminded me of just how much the election contest brought by Talmadge Heflin against Hubert Vo blows a hole in the "voter fraud" claims the GOP likes to throw around these days. Royal Masset brought this up the other day, how there was no fraud found in that excruciatingly scrutinized race, and it's worth emphasizing again today.

In his report ruling against Heflin, Republican Rep. Will Hartnett, who was the adjudicator of that contest, noted three kinds of questioned votes. One was for people who voted at the wrong precinct. They were legitimately in HD149, they just went to the wrong location within that district to vote. Those votes were counted. Another was for people from Fort Bend County, which borders HD149, who erroneously voted in Harris County. This is a relatively common situation - according to Paul Bettencourt, the county line is not well delineated, and he and his cohort in Fort Bend receive registration applications from folks on the other side of the line all the time. Those votes, which broke both ways, were discounted for the HD149 race.

Finally, there was a small set of truly questionable votes. One was cast by a non-citizen, a Norwegian national. He had filled out a reg form at a voter's registration drive, and correctly indicated on the form that he was not a citizen. He was mistakenly sent a voter's reg card anyway (by Bettencourt's office), and his vote was subsequently thrown out. There was a woman who voted in person and also by mail. She was accustomed to voting in person, but said in her deposition that when she received a mail ballot, she assumed she was supposed to fill it out and send it it; she didn't realize that having done so, she wasn't supposed to then vote in person. One of her two votes was discarded. Finally, there was a person who was living in north Texas as of November, 2004. He was selling his home in Harris County - it was still on the market at the time, he still had personal belongings there, and he hadn't registered in his new county yet. His vote was allowed to stand.

The kicker to this is that all three of those folks testified in their deposition that they had voted for Talmadge Heflin; the Norwegian gentleman said he voted a straight Republican ticket. That didn't stop Andy Taylor from referring to them, prior to the hearing, as examples of the pernicious fraud in HD149 that helped put Hubert Vo into office, and which he, Andy Taylor, Defender of the Sanctity of the Voting Process, was there to ferret out and expose for all the world to see. None of these folks had acted in bad faith, and by almost perverse coincidence they'd all supported Taylor's man. But they served a useful rhetorical purpose, one which still informs the terms of this argument more than two years later.

None of this will matter if David Dewhurst takes advantage of Sen. Mario Gallegos' fragile health and brings HB218 to the floor of the Senate now that he can (at least in theory) get it to a vote. Harvey Kronberg suggests that at least one Republican Senator has lost his appetite for this fight, especially as there's a lot of unfinished business and less than five days in which to accomplish it. As you know, I don't put much stock in that, but maybe I'll be proven wrong. HB218 is on the intent calendar for today, but it's been there every day this week, so perhaps that doesn't mean anything. Whatever the case, I wanted to go over all this just as a reminder where we came from. I don't know where we'll wind up, but that's where we've been, and I hope we all remember that.

Anti-rail "lawsuit" hearing

Didn't get to this yesterday, but the hearing for the anti-rail "lawsuit" took place on Wednesday.

A judge heard arguments Wednesday, but did not rule, on a Richmond Avenue resident's request to order Metropolitan Transit Authority officials to testify about their transit plans.

Attorney Andy Taylor, representing Daphne Scarborough, had filed a motion in April to compel the testimony but did not formally sue the agency. Metro described the unusual tactic as a "fishing expedition."

Neither side called witnesses in the two-hour hearing before state District Judge Levi Benton.

Seems almost anti-climactic, doesn't it? I don't know what I was expecting from a Section 202 petition hearing, but I suppose I thought there'd be a witness or two.

Taylor began by arguing that Metro has violated the 2003 referendum in which voters narrowly approved the transit plan. He cited changes in the specified routes, substitution of Bus Rapid Transit for light rail on four of the five routes, and a reduction in bus service. He also questioned Metro's plans for funding the expansion.

Metro's lawyers, Gene Locke and Andrew Edison, said the agency is complying with the referendum and argued that the hearing should focus on the narrow issue of whether its officials should have to testify in the absence of a lawsuit.

Locke argued that applying the legal provision to government bodies like Metro would allow any litigant with a grievance to hamstring an agency in the performance of its duties.

Taylor responded that the alternative would be a "full-blown nuclear war" in court, wasting time and money.

In other words, "Do exactly as we say, or we'll sue". Quite the choice, no? You know, since it's Scarbrough and Taylor who'd be making the first strike in this hypothetical nuclear war, it's also Scarbrough and Taylor who can avoid its resulting waste of time and money by choosing to avoid the confrontation instead. I'm just saying.

There's also an implication in Taylor's words that if only Metro would capitulate and agreed to being deposed, Taylor could heroically get to the truth of the matter. This, naturally, would avoid the need for all that costly and wasteful litigation, because Metro will come to see how wrong they've been all along. It's almost like he's expecting a Perry Mason-style confession to come out of this: "OK, OK, I did it, and I'm glad! We deliberately misled the public into voting for something we never intended to build. And we'd have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!"

OK, maybe not. But what I'm getting at here is, under what circumstances will this not lead to a lawsuit? Suppose Judge Benton grants Taylor's motion and lets him depose away. What are the odds that after all is said and done, Taylor will conclude that there isn't enough evidence for him to have any kind of chance of winning in court? Remember, Taylor has a record of making grandiose claims that evaporate under scrutiny. Are there any circumstances under which he'll walk away without firing a shot, after coming all this way? Especialy considering that, as RichmondRail.org notes, all the principals in this action have fought light rail from the beginning, and continue to do so in the other non-Universities corridors today? I don't think so.

We'll see what Judge Benton says. Meanwhile, RichmondRail.org has a timeline to ponder. Check it out.

Where's the review?

Remember the telecom bill that was finally passed in the second special session of 2005? Sure you do. What you may not remember - or, like me, even have realized - is that it contained a provision to do formal reviews of its effects. Whatever happened to that? Basically, nothing.

The controversial bill, Senate Bill 5, approved in the second special session after a ferocious and costly lobbying battle between the phone and cable industries, included among its provisions the creation of the Telecommunications Competitiveness Legislative Oversight Committee, a council of legislators (and the chief executive of the Public Utility Counsel) that would hold public hearings, evaluate the law's repercussions, and report back to the Legislature by the end of 2006. House Speaker Tom Craddick and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst dutifully issued press releases announcing their selections for the committee and wishing the members godspeed. "I have confidence in [the committee members'] abilities to find recommendations to improve our telecommunications laws and monitor the implementation of this historic legislation," Craddick declared in his press release.

And then ... nothing. The committee never met. There was no public testimony. No report was issued. "It was something that we were all anticipating," said Rondella Hawkins, manager of telecommunications and regulatory affairs for the city of Austin. "They were going to look at some of the key areas of the law." SB 5, which set a national precedent, altered the basics of the telecom business in Texas, allowing phone companies into the television game by eliminating franchise agreements with local municipalities and creating a "one-stop" state franchise system. By the letter of the law, the committee was charged with exploring several specific and controversial aspects of the legislation, including "the fairness of rates, the quality of service, and the effect of regulation on the normal forces of competition." It would also monitor right-of-way access fees, franchise fees, and the "continuation of public, educational, and governmental access channels."

[...]

In December 2005, Craddick appointed Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, chairman of the House Regulated Industries Committee and one of the key sponsors of SB 5, to co-chair the oversight committee. Contacted on the House floor, King expressed surprise that anyone was interested in the committee. "Senate Bill 5 has been moving along flawlessly," King said, "so we never felt the need to meet."

But SB 5 didn't ask for the chairman's opinion, critics note, nor allow for any "discretion" about completing its tasks. The law mandates that not only should the committee meet, it should have filed a report by the end of 2006, and then biannually, to satisfy the public that telecom issues were being adequately and fairly addressed. King, who helped craft SB 5, said he didn't realize the law directed the committee to file a report by a specific date. "It calls for a report?" he said. "We probably need to amend it and strike the report; that wasn't really the intent." (An aide for the committee co-chair, Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, did not respond to repeated queries about the committee.)

The committee language was included in the bill, King said, as a "safety," in case the House and Senate needed to resolve issues. With the law purportedly running smoothly and his Regulated Industries Committee dealing with any issues, "the need [for the committee] never came up," he said.

So what if they never met? They didn't need to! Just listen, they'll tell you themselves. If only getting out of meetings at work were that easy.

Digital singles

Back when vinyl ruled the world, I was never much for buying 45s instead of regular LPs, so I never really noticed as the record industry killed them off. But it's still amusing to see the format get resurrected in a modern form.

Almost a decade after virtually eliminating 45s and cassette singles, thereby forcing fans to spend more money on whole albums, the digital single is largely responsible for the industry's woes.

Consumers no longer need to buy an album if they want that cool jam they heard on the radio -- and in growing numbers, they're choosing 99-cent downloads over $15 CDs.

Some worry this trend is worsening the quality of albums as a cohesive musical work, and that label executives are more and more interested in quick hits than lasting music or artists.

Given the sorry state of pop music in general lately, it's hard to imagine how.

While the vast majority of music consumers still buy CD albums, they are buying less of them, while digital tracks are exploding: According to Nielsen SoundScan, sales of physical CDs this year have declined 20 percent from the same point in 2006, from 112 million to 89 million. Digital tracks are up to 288 million from 242 million at the same period last year. And that's not counting the millions of singles that are illegally downloaded.

"Now, we're in a very difference place in terms of the single business," Jim Donio, president of National Association of Recording Merchandisers, said in an interview. "The single business is alive and well, and it's in the form of track downloads."

The same cannot be said, however, for albums. Even counting albums that are downloaded along with physical CDs sold, album sales are down 10 percent from the same period last year, according to Nielsen SoundScan, continuing a decline that has been growing for several years.

[...]

"We tried to stop selling a commercial single because people were making great, great records and albums were selling like hot cakes," says longtime music industry executive Steve Rifkind, founder of Street Records Corp., home to platinum singer/producer Akon, and Loud.com.

But removing the option of purchasing a single may not have helped the album much, either -- and may have actually boosted the original illegal downloading services like Napster, says [Geoff Mayfield, director of charts at Billboard magazine].

"The notion that someone would jump to an album-length purchase because they couldn't find the one song they wanted available was a naive one," he said.

Not completely - I know I bought a few albums back in the day because of one or two songs. Of course, most of the time I came to regret those purchases. Not always - among the many unexpected joys I've found of ripping all my CDs has been hearing some of the stuff I'd avoided because I was reluctant to play a whole CD just for the one song I recognized - but enough times for me to feel burned by it. I haven't transitioned to buying digital-only music yet - I still have CDs to rip - but when I do, I expect I'll be much more choosy, just because I can.

And at 99 cents or so, singles bring in much less profit than albums (which is why iTunes has been pressured by record companies to raise its prices).

Yeah, well, news like this is going to apply some counterpressure to that.

Amazon is finally taking on Apple.

The Seattle-based online retail powerhouse said Wednesday said that it would open a digital music store with a consumer-friendly twist that, Amazon hopes, will give Apple's iTunes a run for its money.

The difference: Customers can do anything they want with the songs they buy.

It's a good time to be a music consumer, isn't it?

Making the case for Dynamo Stadium

Chron soccer writer Glenn Davis makes his pitch for the proposed downtown Dynamo Stadium.

Let me borrow a real estate phrase: Location, location, location is what this is about, and a downtown stadium will be an unparalleled vehicle for promoting soccer. Stadiums out in the hinterlands in MLS are still trying to prove them-selves as a magnet for fans.

I thought the Frisco team was doing pretty well, fan-wise. They certainly spent enough dough on their stadium for that.

Fans migrating to stadiums located in the inner city can become a part of a ritual.

When I was growing up in New Jersey, my father used to take me to sporting events at Madison Square Garden in the heart of New York. The ritual began as we left the house.

Take the train from the suburbs to Hoboken, N.J., then jump on the Path train (subway) under the Hudson River. As we exited the Path and scrambled up the steps to the street, a whole new world opened up.

The streets of Manhattan were alive with vendors, scalpers hawking tickets, and fans of the New York Rangers or Knicks. The air crackled with competition and excitement.

For a kid from the suburbs, this was like going into a new world. To this day, these impressions are indelible in my mind. Whether going to Madison Square Garden or to Giants Stadium to watch Pelé and the New York Cosmos, I always felt that sense of anticipation.

[Dynamo president Oliver] Luck has told me his ritual with his father was taking public transportation to go to Cleveland Indians games.

I can relate to that, having taken the #4 train to Yankee Stadium more times than I can count. Just before the train arrives at 161st Street in the Bronx, it emerges from underground, and the next thing you see is the Stadium in the background. As a kid, that was always a thrill for me.

That's not nearly enough to make me change my mind about public financing for this venue, of course. And as romantic as this notion is, it won't be very practical until the light rail system is built out some more. But hey, if that I-10 rail line ever becomes a reality, maybe I'll take the girls to a game via the train some day. For what it's worth, I'd never have willingly driven to Sugar Land, which I presume was Davis' basic point. But that stadium is still gonna have to get paid for with private money.

An open letter to Les Alexander

Dear Les,

Whatever you do, please don't hire this guy. We Rockets fans have suffered enough.

Yours,

Charles

It takes a village of bohemian hippie attorneys

I love having an excuse to run this picture:

Lisa Gray looks at my favorite development project and wonders if it really will - or even can - be all that.

Sonoma itself doesn't seem concerned about even the shallowest forms of authenticity. "The Rice Village Re-Imagined," proclaim banners facing Bolsover, but it's not clear whether it's being re-imagined as California or Italy. The name screams West Coast, but [developer Randall] Davis seems to favor Italy. A while back, he told Houston Chronicle reporter Nancy Sarnoff that the pedestrian space planned between the buildings will resemble a European plaza with Italian cypresses and palm trees. Viva Italifornia.

Or really, viva anywhere. The Mediterranean Revival architecture you see in the architects' drawings could be a slick new development in any city at all, from Los Angeles to Hong Kong, or maybe in The Woodlands. Just because a development is walkable doesn't mean it has a sense of place.

Wherever Sonoma is pledging its stylistic allegiance, it's not to the Rice Village.

But will that matter? Will cultural creatives care, given shiny Viking appliances and interesting shops a couple of blocks away?

Gray goes on to suggest maybe they won't. Me, I'm not so sure that matters. I look at the genericizing of Montrose and parts of the Heights and think that there's an awful lot of people out there with more money than taste. You can certainly argue either way about whether it's a good thing or not, but in the end I think shiny new buildings with high-end amenities do pretty well regardless of what cultural sins they may be committing. I wouldn't bet against it, is all I'm saying.

Uh oh

Dammit.

Sen. Mario Gallegos is headed back to Houston for a surgical procedure and is not sure whether he will return to Austin for the remainder of the session, according to his spokesman Harold Cook.

Gallegos, who received a liver transplant earlier this year, has missed a good part of the session. But he has been in Austin for the last couple of weeks, against his doctor's wishes.

"His time is up,'' Cook said.

Gallegos' absence leaves an opening for Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst to bring up the contentious voter ID bill, which brought the Senate to a standstill this week.

Without all 11 Democratic Senators on the floor, Republicans have the minimum votes needed to start debate.

When I asked Dewhurst whether he would bring the bill up again, he said, "I haven't had a moment to think about it. We can only fight two or three things at once.''

Gallegos met with the Republican caucus and asked them to respect his attempts to be here on behalf of his constituents, Cook said.

"He has fought the good fight on this," Cook said.

Crap, crap, crap. Get the filibuster gear ready.

Last chance to support SB419

Pete says that SB419, which is the bill that would greatly help autistic children and their parents (see here, here, and here for more), is languishing in committee and may not make it to the House floor. With sine die less than two weeks away, and hard deadlines for voting bills out of committee fast approaching, this is pretty much do or die.

Please take a minute and see if you are represented by a member of the Calendars Committee - Reps. Woolley, Elkins, Turner, and Van Arsdale are all from Harris County - and give them a call to ask that SB419 make it to the House floor. Pete has the contact info for everyone. Thanks very much.

Hopefully the last thing I'll have to say about Dewhurst and HB218

The Chron follows up on yesterday's late report that David Dewhurst had basically given up on forcing HB218 through the Senate. This is very good news, to be sure, but as the man once said, it ain't over till it's over. At least as every hour passes, the threat of an old-fashioned filibuster carries more weight, since there would be collateral damage as well.

Assuming that this really is it, then Mario Perez is right to say that we owe the Democratic Senate caucus a debt of gratitude. Yeah, that includes Eddie Lucio, and John Whitmire. I'm farther along than Greg is at resolving my issues with Whitmire, but I totally get where he's coming from. At this point I'd say the slate with Whitmire is pretty much clean. And I'm glad of it.

Elsewhere, Eliot Shapleigh responds to Dewhurst's letter, and Royal Masset unequivocally states "It's a lie. It's not true. It does not exist." to Republican claims of voter fraud. Check 'em out.

UPDATE: Forgot to link to this Observer blog post.

Budget yes, pension plan not yet

We have a city budget, but we'll have to wait a bit longer to see what kind of pension fund plan gets hashed out.

After proposing a $3.8 billion city budget Wednesday, Mayor Bill White's administration today begins wrestling with one of its more contentious details: funding city employees' retirement program.

The mayor's chief administrative officer, Anthony Hall, and the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System's executive director, David Long, are to begin negotiating the size of the city's contribution to the retirement fund in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Long says the mayor's proposed contribution of $75 million falls short of an agreement both sides reached in 2004. He also questions why the mayor, who must get approval of the pension fund's management on the contribution amount, placed a figure in the budget before the parties began formal discussions.

White called any assertion that he's underfunding the pension "ridiculous." He said his administration has a long-term plan to give employees more retirement options while securing the system for the future. He said the city's pension expert has been working on the issue for months.

Now he and Long must agree on a plan -- which could include changes in pension benefits -- before June 30, the deadline for the City Council to approve the budget.

"There is plenty of time between now and the adoption of the budget to reach an agreement with the pension board," White told reporters Wednesday when asked why the negotiations hadn't started sooner.

True enough, though it certainly couldn't have hurt to start sooner. On the other hand, there's nothing like a deadline to focus the mind.

The mayor's proposed $75 million pension contribution is based on the same rate of contribution to the pension as during the previous fiscal year: 15.8 percent of civilian payroll. The city paid about a $72 million contribution during the current fiscal year.

White's proposal is $34 million less than what Long says the city is legally required to pay under a 2004 agreement. It allowed the city to pay less than the full contribution for three years to deal with a $1.9 billion unfunded liability the mayor inherited when he took office.

With their divergent perspectives on the issue, getting a new agreement could be difficult. "That's a huge gap that would need to be made up," Long said. "But I'll reserve judgment until I see their numbers."

Given the lack of lost love among the principals here, this has the potential for some real fireworks. Regardless of that, I too look forward to seeing the numbers. I don't know how much wiggle room there is for Mayor White, but we'll see.

As for the rest of the budget, it sounds pretty good at first glance:

The budget includes funding for six [police] cadet classes, which could lead to a net increase of about 170 officers on the understaffed force. The mayor also set aside police overtime money to keep officers on the streets.

The Fire Department also would get money for cadets, and the firefighters would get a 5.5 percent pay increase as part of a collective bargaining agreement. Until that deal, the firefighters went several years without salary increases.

The mayor also touted new money for crime analysis, books and library materials, extended hike and bike trails and new fitness equipment in city recreation centers. The health department also would get more resources for disease prevention, he told the council.

It also includes money for traffic light synchronization, which warms my heart. Not much in the way of feedback from City Council on the budge yet. We'll see what they have to say after they've had a chance to really read the thing.

Another delay from Bonnen

I said yesterday that SB12, one of the very few clean air bills to make it through the committee process this session, was supposed to finally come up for final passage last night. Unfortunately, Rep. Dennis Bonnen struck again:

For the second day in a row Wednesday, House Environmental Regulation Chairman Dennis Bonnen, R-Angleton, postponed his bill rather than expose his colleagues to what he called a politically risky vote.

The bill was slated for final passage Tuesday, when Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, proposed an amendment to set statewide standards for toxic air emissions.

Bonnen disagreed with the amendment and postponed the bill. He did the same on Wednesday, telling House members the amendment has no chance of receiving the two-thirds support needed to attach it to the bill.

He accused Farrar of trying to "expose certain members to political retaliation" and negative editorials in the Houston Chronicle.

"I'm not going to allow this body to be used as a political body when it is a legislative body about making policy," said Bonnen in an interview.

Sure, Dennis. Tell that to Speaker Craddick.

Maybe Bonnen's just cranky after quitting his job in the wake of a verbal spat with the Greater Houston Partnership over his anti-clean air obstinacy. I mean, when you look up "Establishment Bidnessmen" in Wikipedia, you get redirected to the GHP homepage. If these guys are telling you that adopting California's low-emission vehicles program is a good idea, then what exactly is holding you back?

Oh, well. On the plus side for Bonnen, he did manage to get SB1317 out of committee, which is pretty much his purpose in the Lege. No politics there, right, Dennis?

"Bill Ceverha bill" passes the House

The "Bill Ceverha bill", which passed out of the Senate in March, has now passed out of the House, and should be signed into law. While there were multiple bills with the same intent that got filed, in the end it was SB129 that made it over all the hurdles. Rep. Lon Burnam, who was one of the most vocal critics of the gaping loophole made by the Texas Ethics Commission, which this bill officially closes, had the following to say:

Today, the Texas House passed SB 129 which definitively requires public officials to disclose the value of monetary gifts they receive that exceed $250 in value. The Governor is expected to sign the bill now that it has passed both chambers.

This issue first came to light after Bob Perry gave ERS board member and Tom Craddick-confidante Bill Ceverha two checks worth $50,000 each. Ceverha tried to describe $100,000 in cash gifts merely as"checks," without disclosing the amount. Ceverha is the former treasurer for Tom DeLay's TRMPAC.

"I have spent the past two years working for greater transparency and disclosure in state ethics laws," said State Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth). "Hopefully, with the passage of this bill, the Texas Ethics Commission will no longer be able to turn a blind eye when Republican cronies attempt to avoid disclosure," said Burnam. "I'm very disappointed that the Ethics Commission didn't do the right thing in the first place."

"I've introduced legislation, HB 2451, to require the Ethics Commission to interpret and implement statutes so that this kind of situation doesn't happen again.

"The Legislature should not have to do the Ethics Commission's job by making laws when rules will suffice," Burnam continued. "The Legislature only meets for five months every two years. We rely on state agencies to make rules to uphold the intent of the law. The Commission failed us in the Ceverha gift case.

"Hopefully in the future they will require disclosure of the amount of a $100,000 'gift.'" Rep. Burnam's HB 2451 passed the House overwhelmingly and is currently in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

Kudos all around on this one.

Journey for "Jessica's Law" nears its end

Grits reports that the conference comittee has done its work on HB8, also known as "Jessica's Law", meaning that the final version can be voted on and sent to Governor Perry. He has a link to a report on how it changed in committee, and a prediction for the future:

I predict the 25 year mandatory minimum first offense will be reduced by a future Texas Legislature soon after the first instance discovered where a family did not turn in a pedophilia case involving a young child because of stiff first-time sentences. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

I think for this prediction to come true, the situation would have to be something like "family doesn't report its funny uncle, who then attacks someone else's kid". Of course, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that the Lege would react instead by making it a felony to not report these crimes. Never underestimate the potential for a bad situation to be made worse, I always say. Either way, I agree that once there is a very public failure of Jessica's Law, there will be tremendous pressure to Do Something about it. It's just a question of what.

Watch out for shifting taxes

From the CPPP:

SB 407 by Eltife would permit cities and counties to levy an additional 1/4% sales tax each to offset property taxes. These sales taxes could be in addition to the state sales tax of 6 1/4% and the current maximum local tax of 2%, which is used by cities, counties, and special districts (transit authorities and special purpose districts, such as hospital districts).

A new maximum tax rate of 8 3/4% would be the 13th highest state-local combined rate in the nation.

The sales tax is a regressive tax that places a much greater burden on lower- and middle-income families than on upper-income families. Increasing the sales tax to reduce property taxes would increase taxes on 80% of families while lowering taxes for only those families with incomes over $110,000.

SB 407 was voted out of the Local Government Ways and Means Committee in a formal meeting (without the opportunity for public testimony) on May 14. We expect it to be considered on the House floor soon. (The House must act on Senate bills by May 22.)

Call or e-mail your representative RIGHT NOW and tell them that Texas relies too heavily on regressive sales taxes and to VOTE NO ON SB 407. Find your representative at http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/.

For more on who pays Texas taxes, see: http://www.cppp.org/research.php?aid=638&cid=7.

For reasons I can't quite comprehend, this bill got five Yea votes from Democratic Senators (PDF); Steve Ogden was the sole Republican to vote No. As such, I can't say I have a lot of faith in the House being a bulwark against it. But make those calls or send those emails anyway, and hope for the best.

The strangest press release I've ever gotten

After 5.5 years of blogging, mostly on political stuff, I'm on every mailing list known to humankind, and I get more press releases than you can shake a keyboard at. In all that time, I don't believe I've ever gotten a press release as weird as the one I got yesterday with the subject line "Man Assaulted by Nightclub". I don't know about you, but I was unaware that a nightclub was able to commit assault. Turns out it was the bouncers that did the assaulting, which at least makes sense. Why this merited a press release, however, and why it was sent to me - did I mention that the nightclub in question is in San Antonio? - is one of those eternal mysteries.

I reproduce it below for your amusement. In the interest of not providing gratuitous publicity for the individuals involved in this tete-a-tete, as well as providing a few cheap giggles, I'm removing all of the names and replacing them with substitutes. Read and enjoy.

San Antonio, Texas, May 16, 2007 - A young man was severely beaten by at least two bouncers at [Nameless] Nightclub in January 2007. He has filed a lawsuit today alleging assault, negligence and vicarious liability against the well-known venue.

On January 21, 2007, [Joe Anonymous] was celebrating his brother¹s birthday with their cousin at [Nameless] Nightclub on NW Loop 410. At approximately 8:30 pm, Mr. [Anonymous] attempted to pay his credit card tab with cash. His waitress became infuriated with his request to pay cash and called for a bouncer. The [Nameless] bouncer pulled Mr. [Anonymous] to his feet, grabbed him by the neck and led him outside.

As soon as Mr. [Anonymous] was thrown out the front door, another bouncer tackled him, knocking him to the pavement face-first. One bouncer then straddled Mr. [Anonymous]'s back and continued to pull his arm backwards, causing severe injuries. Another bouncer viciously and repeatedly kicked Mr. [Anonymous]'s face, nearly breaking his jaw. A large pool of blood eventually covered the ground outside the front entrance of [Nameless]. During the attack, the
manager idly stood nearby. Mr. [Anonymous] lay bleeding and unconscious. Mr. [Anonymous]'s brother repeatedly pleaded for an ambulance and police; the manager refused to call.

Mr. [Anonymous] was treated at [St. Elsewhere] Hospital. He suffered lacerations, bruising, torn ligaments and a nearly broken jaw. He continues to undergo medical treatment and therapy for his injuries.

[Hugh Louis Dewey] of [Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe, PLLC] filed suit against [Nameless] and
its bouncers on May 15, 2007. The lawsuit has been filed as [lawsuit number]. "This type of behavior is unacceptable and purely criminal in nature. Bouncers of any nightclub are supposed to protect, not instigate," said [Mr. Dewey, known to the Curt Schilling Souvenir Sock vendors in Harvard Square as Huey Louie Dewey]. "We will work expeditiously to ensure a fair and just outcome for Mr. [Anonymous]. He has suffered tremendously for no apparent reason," insisted
[Dewey].

Amended Carona bill passes out of the House

Back in April, a bill passed out of the Senate that would explicitly give cities the right to operate red light cameras, while simultaneously putting restrictions on their use. Now an amended version of that bill has passed out of the House, which would insert a sunset provision for the cameras.

The sunset provision was added to a Senate bill that would give cities formal legislative authority to enforce red lights with cameras. The differences in the House and Senate versions will have to be worked out in a conference committee.

Rep. Carl Isett, R-Lubbock, a longtime opponent of red-light cameras, amended the bill to prohibit the use of cameras after Sept. 1, 2009, unless they get an affirmative vote from the Legislature.

"Today is the first opportunity we've had to talk about how they will be implemented," Isett said. "We've always had constitutional problems with these. We're frustrated having this conversation over and over again. We're frustrated with the way this became law."

[...]

Senate Bill 1119 gives cities the legislative authority to operate red-light cameras. It prohibits contracts between cities and vendors that base compensation on the number of citations issued. And it requires cities to study intersections' traffic volume, collision history and frequency of red-light violations before installing cameras.

Rep. Jim Murphy, R-Houston, the House sponsor of the bill, attempted to table Isett's amendment, saying it reduces local control, would create an unfunded mandate and is a potential breach of contract. Murphy's motion failed on a close vote.

Murphy accepted 11 other amendments to the bill. Among them, cities would have to monitor and report the number and type of wrecks at each intersection to determine whether collisions declined after cameras were installed.

As always, the next step is a conference committee, at which time anything can happen. In theory at least, I'm okay with Isett's amendment. I've said all along that I want to see evidence that the cameras actually have a palliative effect on collisions and injuries at the intersections where the cameras are installed. I just want to know what criteria will be used by the Lege to judge their effectiveness. Will every camera-enabled intersection have to show a reduction in collisions, or will a reduction at the intersections as a whole suffice? A reduction in total collisions, or in the per capita collision rate? Just collisions, or collisions with injuries? All I'm saying is that the metric should be defined and agreed upon before the new rules are implemented, or else we'll just be making the same "does not! does too!" arguments all over again.

UPDATE: The Walker Report gives a progress report on the cameras in Balcones Heights.

Is this the end of the line for HB218?

I'll believe it when I see it, but David Dewhurst is apparently saying that he won't be able to force HB218 through, because the Democrats are strong in their unified opposition to it. All I know is that I've got May 22, which is the last day to vote on unpassed bills, circled on my calendar. Note to Sen. Shapleigh: I know this sucks, but I think you're going to have to miss your son's graduation on Tuesday. We can't take the chance.

Meanwhile, Patricia Kilday Hart says Dewhurst's ill-advised tirade against Sen. Whitmire, which he's since disavowed and blamed on his staff, has cost him support among Republican Senators who might have been otherwise inclined to lift the two-thirds rule on HB218. It's almost enough to make you feel sorry for the guy. Almost.

Another aspect of the Speaker's race

It's important to remember that Tom Craddick's biggest supporters are the hardcore base of the Republican Party. His best strategy for staying in power is going to be to leverage that support as well as his vast financial resources to whip up turnout in the next primary and general elections. Keep that in mind as you read this tidbit from Quorum Report.

In what some members believe is a signal about the year and half long speaker battle to come, the Calendars Committee surprised most observers by setting two heavyweight abortion bills on the Major State Calendar for tomorrow. They point to the Calendar being posted just hours after Speaker Craddick announced his intention to run for a fourth term.

The Speaker's office dismisses any such sinister notion noting that the bills had just come over from the Senate and were set on the Calendar as a normal course of business.

One of the sources of irritation with the Speaker this session is the amount of blood spilled and floor time that has been committed to socially conservative issues that had no legs in the Senate. In contrast, these two bills started in the Senate and are waiting for House action.

The first is SB920 by Patrick that requires patients seeking abortions be compelled to see sonograms of the fetus beforehand. The second is SB785 by Shapiro which requires reports from physicians on any abortion and publishes information about judges that grant judicial bypasses thus targeting them for voter reprisal.
Critics of the bills complain that both bills substantially insert the state into what should be a medical issue between physician and patient.

Opponents particularly complain that SB785 is intended to follow through on the Republican Party of Texas Platform that says, "We call for the electoral defeat of all judges who through raw judicial activism seek to nullify the Parental Consent Law by wantonly granting bypasses to minor girls seeking abortions...."

Heather Paffe of Planned Parenthood said, "It is not a coincidence that this happened just hours after a race for Speaker was announced yesterday. Women's health and the safety of our teens and judges have no place in Speaker politics.

Both Republicans and Democrats with which we spoke see this as the end of the cessation of floor hostilities and the low key ambience engineered for the calendars earlier this week. These bills have the potential of dramatically raising the decibel level and moving all sides to DefCon 4.

Perhaps it is simply paranoia, but the presumed thinking behind the move is to cut up members, particularly WD40s and moderate Republicans for what they argue is the inevitable purging effort to come now that there is a speakers race. Ginning up the social conservative base for both the Republican primary and the general election in a presidential year could be an effective strategy they say.

One Republican active in the Craddick opposition movement said yesterday that, "freshmen are Craddick's oxygen." This observer noted that Craddick needed a large freshman class of Republicans in 2003 to win his first speakership. And while many in the current class of Republican freshmen were either implicitly or explicitly critical of the leadership in their campaigns last year, they almost uniformly followed the advice of their consultants to support the incumbent in last January's speakers race.

I'm told that SB920 will be delayed due to a procedural error and re-commitment to a different committee, but SB785 is on its way. Put on your flameproof skivvies, it's going to be another nasty day. The Observer has more on this, including a preview of some of the amendments that will be brought up.

Andy Neill endorses Melissa Noriega

Noel Freeman was the first of the runnerup City Council candidates to make an endorsement in the runoff, and now Andy Neill has followed suit.

My Fellow Houstonians,

As a registered Independent and a candidate for City Council during the current Special Election cycle, I have been granted a truly unique vantage point from which to assess fellow competitors and their messages of change for the City of Houston. It's from that perspective that I feel compelled to endorse candidate Melissa Noreiga for the vacant At-Large position 3 seat in the upcoming runoff.

Melissa Noriega has earned my admiration and respect with her compassion, sincerity, and firm grasp of the complex issues that affect our citizens on a daily basis. Specifically I share Melissa's vision of Houston that addresses the following concerns:

• Balancing economic growth with the need for more green space and parks


• Greater protection of our citizenry while respecting individual freedoms at the same time


• Greater attention to the special needs of our children and Senior Citizens

I encourage everyone to do their homework on the issues that affect them and their families and make their own choice. I however have made mine and I am proud to support Melissa Noriega over the coming weeks.

Sincerely,

Andy Neill

The only other formal announcement of an endorsement so far is from Tom Nixon, who endorsed Roy Morales. I am aware of other endorsements in the works, and will report on them as soon as I have the official word.

Joe Pojman speaks

Since I've raised questions about the email that's been sent twice now by the Texas Alliance for Life in support of Tom Craddick as Speaker, I thought I should put the response from its Executive Director Joe Pojman, which he left in the comments to that post, on the front page:

With due respect to Mr. [Buck] Wood, my email to members regarding a "motion to unseat the speaker" is 100% within Texas law. Regardless of whether my email is a "thing of value," the issue addressed in my email addresses is not a speaker's race. A motion to remove a sitting speaker, the subject of my email, is not a motion to elect a speaker. Therefore, my email is not limited by Sec. 302.017 any more than an email to members on motions to adopt or table House or Senate bills.

Joe Pojman, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Texas Alliance for Life

So there you have it.

Senate at recess: Now what?

Despite rumors of rules gamesmanship in the Senate, they have recessed for the day without taking up any House bills. That doesn't mean the Dems are out of the woods on HB218, just that it's been pushed back for a day. Which means there's still a chance for David Dewhurst to re-live the Tuesday he'd like to forget.

If he really didn't care about passing the voter ID bill, and just wanted to pay lip service to the GOP agenda, he had cover. The Democrats' 11-member opposition would have let Dewhurst watch HB 218 expire with the session. His high regard for the rules of the Senate, he could say, wouldn't allow him to break the two-thirds rule, or risk stalling the lawmaking process with a filibuster. Unfortunately, a potential future political rival -- Sen. Dan Patrick -- was on record against the two-thirds rule.

If, however, what he really wanted was to flex his power at the helm of the Senate and ram the bill through, it would have been easy Tuesday, with Sen. Carlos Uresti (D--San Antonio) home sick with the flu during the morning call. With just 10 Democrats around, the path was clear to bring HB 218 to the floor.

[...]

Uresti says Dewhurst knew he was home sick Tuesday morning, because he'd called in to the Secretary of the Senate's office earlier, "out of courtesy. It seemed like the appropriate thing to do, just to let them know," he says. Dewhurst must also have known Democrats would rush to get Uresti back to the floor, and he didn't have all day. Still, he let Democratic Senator Eliot Shapleigh quiz the bill's sponsor, Troy Fraser, on "the history of this issue... into the 1940s, and all of the history of how this hinders the right to vote," among other questions.

That exchange alone took ten minutes, before Sen. Dan Patrick raised a point of order against debating the bill without voting to consider it. When the vote did come up, Sen. Glen Hegar wasn't on the floor to vote with other Republicans, something easily prevented by better communication from the top. Benkiser, and other results-oriented GOP leaders, will want to know why Dewhurst saw fit to take his sweet time to finally bring up the bill, and didn't have his bloc of Republican votes in line.

Indifference to the rules and and an inability to follow through - there's a combination that just screams "Governor material!", doesn't it?

Dewhurst also had to disavow a letter written on his own stationary that trashed Democrats and Sen. Whitmire. See here, here, here, here, and here for more.

Can I get a motion to adjourn here? Please?

Bonnen versus Bonnen

From the Texas League of Conservation Voters, the latest shenanigans by Rep. Dennis Bonnen:

Chairman of the House Environmental Regulations Committee, Rep. Dennis Bonnen, is threatening to kill his own clean air bill, SB 12, to avoid a floor vote on regulating toxic air emissions in Texas. Yesterday, Houston Representative Jessica Farrar offered an amendment to SB 12 that would set statewide standards for toxic air emissions in Texas. Rather than make House members cast a record vote, Bonnen twice chose to postpone SB 12.

"I'm not sure what Chairman Bonnen is afraid of. Is he afraid that Members might actually vote for cleaning up toxic air emissions, or is he afraid that voters will punish those Members who vote against it?" said Colin Leyden, Executive Director for the Texas League of Conservation Voters.

Unlike ozone, there are currently no federal or state standards for toxic air emissions. Toxic air became an issue in a number of House races in the Houston area in the 2006 election. In the 2005 session, former state representative, Martha Wong, consistently voted against amendments to address the problem, and those votes were used against her in the race. She was defeated by Rep. Ellen Cohen who has filed a bill to clean up toxic emissions this session.

"I find it telling that Bonnen, who as chairman of Environmental Regulation is tasked with the job of cleaning up our air, is threatening to kill his own clean-air bill over an amendment that further cleans up our air. Rather than play by the rules everyone else does, he's taking his ball and going home," said Leyden.

Chairman Bonnen repeatedly referred to the Houston Chronicles editorials and stories covering the ongoing failure of the Texas Legislature to deal with serious air pollution in Houston. He seems more concerned with hiding the ball from the public than dealing with the legislative business assigned to his committee.

This bill is apparently scheduled to be heard tonight at 7. We'll see what happens.

That's a marriage class I'd pay for

Michael Croft takes the news of the "double or nothing" marriage license fees, stirs in the recent news of the strip clubs' legal woes, and comes up with the obvious solution. You need to move back to Texas, dude. We need more thinking like that around here.

Response to Mayor's response

Following the Mayor's letter to the editor over the Chron pension fund story, today we have a response from David Long, the executive director of the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System. This is a long one, so I'll put it beneath the fold. The crux of it is this:

The issue is not whether the mayor or his administration stated they would pay an amount required by state law, but why they have ignored our repeated requests for discussions about it, and why they are just now disputing an amount they have known about for almost three years.

It's a good question, one that I'd guess is answered by one part hoping things would be better by the time they really had to deal with it (kinda like this; note that according to the letter, things are in fact a little better, just not that much better), one part denial, and one part playing hardball. Obviously, the Mayor needs to follow the law and meet the obligations to which the city is bound. I have faith that this will happen, but we'll see what's in the budget. Here's Director Long's letter:

UPDATE: See also today's Chron editorial, which among other things says:

When he championed boosting the pension benefits in 2001, Long cited figures from his actuarial consultant that they would not cost more than 15 percent of the city payroll, roughly what the city is paying now. Two years later, that figure had swollen to 42 percent, a potential cost to taxpayers of $100 million annually. The pension board also underestimated the unfunded liabilities of the system by half.

With that kind of track record on fiscal accuracy, Long is hardly in a position to critique efforts of others to clean up the mess the pension board helped create.

Isn't this fun?

MAYOR Bill White, in his May 15 letter, said he does not plan to pay the city of Houston's full pension obligation to its municipal employees because he believes the statutory rate is unrealistic. But it is the law. State law requires the city to contribute an actuarial determined amount to the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System. If the mayor doesn't like the law, he could have worked through the process to get it changed.

In 2004, the HMEPS agreed, at Mayor White's request, to a three-year period of structured cash contributions ($66 million, $69 million and $72 million) in order to accommodate the city's budget requirements. It was clearly stated at that time that the cash contributions, based on the actuarial rate, would increase to $115 million on June 30, 2007, but because of HMEPS' outstanding investment returns, that number is down to $109.6 million.

HMEPS clearly understood that when the three-year funding schedule ended on June 30, 2007, the city would pay the amount required by state law. Based on the meet and confer negotiations we had, we believed the city understood that, as well.

In fact, in 2004, HMEPS sent to the city contribution rate projections for fiscal year 2008 and several years thereafter, and the actual rate and dollar amount are even less than projected. Also, the city received annual updates of the projected contribution amount for next fiscal year, and the actual rate is right in line with the projections.

The issue is not whether the mayor or his administration stated they would pay an amount required by state law, but why they have ignored our repeated requests for discussions about it, and why they are just now disputing an amount they have known about for almost three years.

Since the 2004 Meet and Confer Agreement, HMEPS has kept the city apprised of the increased funding requirement through written and oral communications, and has initiated attempts to meet for discussion.

At public pension meetings, City Council members have expressed concern about this issue and even asked, as far back as 2004, how it was being addressed. The city's pension official, Craig Mason, also acknowledged almost a year ago that this issue should be addressed.

The mayor is now speaking about a new pension plan, with even more options, as if that would be a good thing. However, giving more options is not meaningful to people if the options create a reduced benefit package. He also mentioned benefit proposals, but no specific proposals or associated cost breakdowns have been initiated by the mayor through the meet and confer process. Besides, these benefit issues were dealt with thoroughly when Mayor White's administration and HMEPS negotiated the 2004 Meet and Confer Agreement, which was approved by our board and the City Council. This agreement reduced the unfunded liability by about $1 billion, primarily through reducing future benefits by $850 million. We jointly reduced the unfunded liability.

The mayor's letter referred to "the Pension Board's 2001 mistake or outright fraud." In 2001, the Pension Board included five city representatives to ensure that the city's interests were dealt with. The city had a full voice on the board.

Regarding his referring to fraud, it is irresponsible for Mayor White to make such an allegation as this matter was fully investigated and reviewed more than three years ago with no finding of wrongdoing. Mayor White's staff has stated on numerous occasions that the funding shortfall is due to a mistake by the actuary.

I believe it is important to emphasize that HMEPS negotiated the Meet and Confer Agreement in good faith and has met its obligations under the agreement.

The city leadership should recognize the importance of this issue and make every attempt to work with us to meet the city's obligations under the law.

DAVID L. LONG executive director, Houston Municipal Employees Pension System

Dynamo Stadium deal being negotiated

We first heard about this last week, and now it's official: The Houston Dynamo are talking to the city about building a stadium near Minute Maid Park.

The Anschutz Entertainment Group, owners of the Dynamo, would bear the brunt of the 22,000-seat open air facility near Minute Maid Park that would cost between $70 million and $80 million, said Billy Burge, Harris County-Houston Sports Authority chairman.

Although parties involved anticipate a public-private partnership, it is unclear how much the city would contribute toward the construction costs, said Oliver Luck, president and general manager of the Dynamo.

But a substantial part of the public contribution could take the form of providing some parking, making infrastructure improvements and helping the Dynamo obtain a reasonable lease for the land where the stadium would be built, he said.

"The mayor has made it clear that this will work only with a substantial private investment," Luck said.

The most likely site would be Minute Maid's parking lot C, a 900-space lot just east of the ballpark and U.S. 59, Burge said. The sports authority leased the lot to the Astros for 30 years as part of the Minute Maid Park deal.

[...]

Mayor Bill White has ruled out using property tax revenues to help finance the stadium, but sales and hotel occupancy taxes might be an option, said Frank Michel, the mayor's spokesman.

The city and Dynamo are finalizing a letter that would set the terms and topics of their negotiations. The deadline to complete the talks would be mid-July, Michel said.

The sports authority isn't expected to pay any construction costs and would have little to do with the deal since the Astros have a long-term lease on the land, Burge said.

I do not favor using any public money for this deal. Helping with parking and with getting a decent lease, that's fine. "Infrastructure improvements", that depends on what exactly we're talking about. Using sales and hotel occupancy taxes to help finance the stadium, no way. There was a time when I supported that sort of thing. I have since learned my lesson.

Pam Gardner, the Astros' president of business operations, said the team is open to a soccer stadium being built on a Minute Maid lot, but would like to know more about how it would affect parking and traffic.

"We welcome more entertainment, arts, sports. All of those things are good for downtown," she said. "We'd be happy to have more to say once we know what the plan is."

Watch out for any concessions to the Astros, too. They don't get a second trip to the public trough.

AEG is focusing on the downtown site after officials in Sugar Land withdrew from talks about building a soccer stadium. The Sugar Land City Council Tuesday night was to consider a partnership with AEG to build a 5,000- to 6,000-seat performing arts center.

Well, at least they'd still be the Houston Dynamo to me. So that's something.

"The Bionic Woman" lives

God help me, I'm actually curious about this.

The "Bionic Woman" is being called upon to rescue a desperate NBC from its ratings woes. A reworking of the '70s comic-book adventure series is among the six new shows announced Monday for the struggling Peacock Network's fall schedule.

Michelle Ryan ("EastEnders") will play Jamie Sommers, the bionically reconstructed title character portrayed by Lindsay Wagner in the 1976-78 incarnation. Wagner's Jamie was a tennis pro nearly killed in a skydiving accident. Ryan's Jamie is bartender and a surrogate mother to her teenage sister (Mae Whitman).

Slated for 9-10 p.m. Wednesday, "Bionic Woman" also stars Miguel Ferrer, Chris Powers and Will Yun Lee.

More info is here. I admit it, I loved the original "Bionic Woman". The more I think about this, the more I think that this could be a very cool show. Or, of course, it could also suck rocks. But if the folks who "re-imagined" Battlestar Galactica are involved, then I'll give it some faith, even if I too would prefer a slightly older Jamie Summers. Bring it on, NBC.

More toll road maneuvering

I've just about lost track of where the whole toll road moratorium thing is now. I'm not even sure it's appropriate to keep referring to an actual "moratorium", given all the exceptions that have been larded in. In any event, here's the latest.

Trying to avoid a confrontation with the governor, the Texas Senate voted unanimously Monday for another transportation bill that preserves a two-year moratorium on most private toll roads.

Senate Bill 792 also satisfies Gov. Rick Perry's concerns in another transportation bill sitting on his desk that he plans to veto because, he contends, it transfers too much road-building authority from the state to local communities.

[...]

The private toll road moratorium would not apply to major projects already planned in the Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth areas.

The Houston-area Grand Parkway and a proposed I-69 project from Corpus Christi to Brownsville also would be exempted from the moratorium.

The new legislation, which requires approval by the state House, would create a new "market valuation" approach for planning and building roads.

[...]

The latest transportation bill could run into a wary House chamber.

"I don't think any of us have seen it. I don't know what kind of reception it will get," said. Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, author of the moratorium on private toll roads.

The compromise legislation passed by the Senate represents an agreement between senators, the governor and state highway officials.

"Everybody says it's 'agreed upon,' but I didn't really see any House members in that meeting," Kolkhorst said.

I'm not even sure what to root for at this point.

Meanwhile, speaking of I-69:

Commissioners Court voted today to withdraw the county's membership in the Alliance for I-69 Texas, an organization that has long supported converting U.S. 59 through East and South Texas into an interstate highway.

Harris County has paid $50,000 in annual membership fees to the alliance, a coalition of counties, towns, chambers of commerce and others.

"It has always been my position that we spend too much money on membership fees and get no real value for the dollars we spend," said Commissioner Sylvia Garcia.

The vote on County Judge Ed Emmett's motion to withdraw from the organization was unanimous.

The county is at odds with the I-69 alliance over its request that Gov. Rick Perry veto a state transportation bill because it includes a two-year moratorium on long-term contracts between the state and private firms to build and operate toll roads for profit.

The county wants the bill signed into law because another largely unrelated provision would empower the Harris County Toll Road Authority to build toll roads on Texas Department of Transportation right of way.

Emmett said the I-69 alliance, acting on advice from state highway officials, appears to have given up on building Interstate 69, and now supports constructing a Trans-Texas Corridor toll road roughly parallel to the existing U.S. 59.

[...]

"The alliance's interests have changed since Harris County joined it," Emmett said. "The original intent was to upgrade U.S. 59 to an interstate."

And as far as I know, the intent of I-69 as a TTC component would have it essentially bypass Houston, which is the basic plan for most Corridor highways. It's not clear to me why that would have been a good thing for Houston and Harris County.

One more thing, on a side note:

Even if a tolled corridor is built parallel to U.S. 59, [John Thompson, I-69 alliance chairman and Polk county judge] said he still favors converting the present road into an interstate through East Texas, with the toll road being used mainly by heavy trucks going long distances.

How exactly do we know that the toll road will be used "mainly by heavy trucks going long distances"? Last I checked, the tolls on these roads are going to be pretty stiff. Why would truckers, who are already reeling from high gas prices, want to take on that added expense? I guess they might, if they think they can get where they're going that much faster. I'm just saying this strikes me as a pretty big assumption.

Marriage tax hike goes to Governor

Dammit. I thought that stupid "healthy marriage" bill had been scuttled, but the Senate revived the concept, and now it's on to Governor Perry's desk.

Despite its earlier protests of government intrusion into private lives, the Texas House approved a bill today doubling marriage license fees to $60 unless couples take state-sanctioned classes on how to be good spouses.

The marriage fee hike, which unanimously passed the Senate last week, is now on its way to Gov. Rick Perry.

Couples that agree to take specific classes outlined in the bill will get free marriage licenses, but it is not yet clear how much the classes will cost.

The House, which earlier voted against raising the marriage license fee, reversed that stance with a 84-56 vote.

[...]

Under the bill, those wishing to tie the knot can avoid the marriage fee hike by taking an eight-hour class on how to succeed as a spouse.

The bill specifies that couples must take the classes within a year of applying for a marriage license. If they take the class, the bill also waives a 72-hour waiting period for getting married after a license is granted.

The classes must teach couples conflict management, communication skills and keys to a successful marriage. It does not require that couples be instructed on how to be good parents or how to manage finances.

[...]

[Bill author Rep. Warren] Chisum has said no special degrees or licenses are required to teach the class. Anyone wishing to instruct couples can take a class lasting only a day or two.

[Rep. Tommy] Merritt predicted that marriage classes will pop up around Texas just as defensive driving classes did, based on a bill the Legislature passed.

"There are individuals that make money off of defensive driving. This is just another way for some opportunist to come here under the perception that this is a good idea," he said. "A lot of people will make money off of it. It's terrible."

I think Rep. Merritt is exactly right. A bunch of fly-by-night shysters are going to cash in on this scam. What a joke.

Farmers Branch lawsuits filed

As expected, the ratification of Farmers Branch's anti-immigrant ordinance has spawned a round of lawsuits.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund wants a federal district court to restrain the Dallas suburb from enforcing the rental ban, which is set to take effect next Tuesday.

Three federal lawsuits have been brought against the city on behalf of apartment complexes, business owners, Hispanic residents with undocumented relatives and others. They are being heard together before U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay.

"We'd like the judge to hear this before the ordinance goes into effect," said MALDEF staff attorney Marisol Perez.

A group of business owners behind one of the lawsuits also said that they would file a motion for injunctive relief this afternoon.

"I've said all along that an election was not going to stop this," said Carlos Quintanilla, an activist and spokesman for 43 business owners that have sued the city.

[...]

[City Attorney Matthew] Boyle said he was optimistic about his chances of averting a restraining order. He said he is preparing a letter for the dozen apartment complexes affected explaining how to comply with the law.

The ordinance requires apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions. Violators would face a misdemeanor charge punishable by a fine of up to $500.

That's the first I recall hearing about any exceptions - I may have just missed it before. I wonder what they might be.

Note that as was the case when the ordinance was first passed, one of the lawsuits was filed in state court claiming that the Farmers Branch City Council violated the state open meetings act when they took action. We'll see what happens.

Craddick: Bring it on

Keffer may be in, but Tom Craddick isn't going away. And he has lots of money. The question is whether Keffer will strike before the end of the session or not. It makes sense that he will, but predicting the future is even more of a mug's game than usual these days.

By the way, the Texas Alliance for Life has sent out that pro-Craddick email again, after Keffer had officially filed his papers. Anyone want to say whether that changes things from a legality viewpoint?

Dewhurst: Sleazier and sleazier

Honestly, I don't know what else there is to say about David Dewhurst's actions today.

Carlos Uresti came down with a serious bout of the flu Monday, and left the Capitol after fellow senators noted how bad he looked shivering in the Senate lounge. In particular, Dr. Kyle Janek advised him to get to bed, amidst joking from others present: "What do you think is going to happen? That we'll call up the Voter ID bill?"

It now appears that Uresti's illness may have prompted David Dewhurst to recognize Troy Fraser on the controversial bill, which set in motion an emotional outburst midday Tuesday over Dewhurst's refusal to count John Whitmire's vote.

This again is why I'm skeptical that in a similar situation between now and sine die, any Republican Senator will let his or her professed distaste with Dewhurst's actions be a brake on a future attempt to do an end-around with HB218. I hope I'm wrong, but I wouldn't put any faith in it. BOR has more.

Mayor disputes pension story

Mayor White has a letter to the editor that strongly disputes the nature of yesterday's pension fund story. I'm reprinting it here for future reference:

The Chronicle's May 14 Page One headline that said that the city of Houston "can't keep its promise to the pension fund" was simply untrue. This administration has increased the city's contribution to the Municipal Pension Fund and made it more secure by reducing unfunded liabilities by about $1 billion.

Neither I nor anyone in my administration has ever stated that the city would pay the "statutory rate" for contributions to the Municipal Pension Fund.

In 2004, we defined annual contributions for three years and agreed to negotiate with the Municipal Pension System concerning our contribution thereafter. No other promise was made, and for years I have told all who would listen that the statutory rate is unrealistic.

The article's subheadline also was wrong in stating that I am citing "strained resources" as a reason for letting workers "contribute less, get fewer benefits."

To give our work force more options, our chief pension executive has proposed to allow workers to contribute more or less, and obtain more or less pension, depending on their personal choices about retirement planning.

In March, our finance director stated that we would budget the same percentage of payroll as we did last year -- this is not breaking news.

We have budgeted to pay 15.8 percent of municipal payroll into the pension fund, a higher contribution than the 14.5 percent rate which was the basis for enhanced pension benefits in 2001.

The Municipal Pension Board has the obligation to bring benefits in line with the costs, which they advertised in 2001.

I assure municipal employees that our city's contribution to the pension fund, including both cash contributions and the transfer of the Convention Center hotel, has increased pension security. We avoided massive layoffs or pay cuts to pay for the Pension Board's 2001 mistake or outright fraud. We are fully and deeply committed to the security of the pension system.

We have not broken any promise. We look forward to working with the municipal pension board to keep the city's contribution affordable and sustainable to make municipal pensions more secure and to give employees more options.

-BILL WHITE
mayor, Houston

To which Matt Stiles responds:

First, I stand by the reporting in the story, and the mayor agrees with me on that. He might have a beef with the headlines, which I didn't write.

It's also true that the mayor and the fund worked together to reduce the unfunded liability. But it's been creeping back up, in part because the city, by agreement, hasn't paid the full contribution in recent years.

Paying the "statutory rate" might be unrealistic, but it's the law, at least according to the pension fund.

Finally, the city's position has been clear for weeks. But it's "breaking news" now because the budget is set for release. We hadn't reported it before because there are plenty of other stories breaking at City Hall, and I wanted to see what the negotiations would bring. As I've said, there haven't been any negotiations. That's newsworthy.

There'll be more from the pension director tomorrow. I want to see what's actually in the budget, because that's where the he-said/she-said will end and the real business will begin.

By any means necessary for Dewhurst

The more I see and hear about Lt. Gov. Dewhurst's attempt to ram through HB218 today, the more appallingly sleazy it becomes. Patricia Kilday Hart fills in more of the gruesome details.

Today, Dewhurst recognized Fraser at a point in the session when most members thought the ceremonial resolutions were still proceeding. Indeed, many members had not yet made it to the floor: some, like Van de Putte and Kirk Watson, had checked in with Senate Secretary Patsy Spaw and ventured to the House to lobby their own bills. Van de Putte got an urgent cell phone call when Fraser was recognized; she shouted to Watson that they needed to get back to vote ASAP. Watson sprinted through the Rotunda and Van de Putte followed (as best she could, in high heels).

When Spaw began taking the vote, Whitmire held up two fingers indicating he was voting no, and thinking he would have to filibuster, took a quick bathroom break. Unbeknownst to him, Spaw had not seen his vote. Royce West saw that Whitmire's vote had not been recorded and informed him. He asked Dewhurst to show him voting no, and Dewhurst rejected his request. Then all hell broke loose.

"I just started hollering, 'you are not going to keep me from voting on this bill,'" Whitmire acknowledged. Calm down, Senator Whitmire, Dewhurst responded. Returning to his desk, Whitmire, slammed his hand on his desk. Again, Dewhurst scolded: Senator Whitmire, calm down, or I will have you removed from the floor.

"I was on the floor and he tried to pull something that goes against everything we stand for around here," Whitmire said."We leave the floor all the time. You don't try to catch people off the floor and not let them represent their districts."

[...]

Eliot Shapleigh's son graduates next Tuesday, and he asked Dewhurst after today's imbroglio if Dewhurst would promise not to bring the bill up that day so that he could attend his son's graduation. I can't guarantee you that, Dewhurst reportedly told him. Democrats now are rounding up Republican allies to allow Shapleigh to attend his son's graduation.

Wow. Sleazy, sleazy, sleazy. Forgive me for being cynical about Sen. Van de Putte's assertion that even her Republican colleagues were shocked by this, or about the likelihood of finding a Republican ally to have Shapleigh's back on Tuesday. This bill is as nakedly partisan as redistricting was in 2003, with the same effect. I hope there's someone who'll prefer winning by the rules to winning by any means necessary, but I'll believe it when I see it.

And yes, this is all about David Dewhurst's 2010 gubernatorial campaign. What else will Dewhurst do in pursuit of that goal? And what might the Democrats plus any Republican Senators who don't support his candidacy do to throw sand in his gears? Just think, we've got a whole 'nother session after this one to find out.

Keffer files for Speaker

No maybes about it, we have ourselves an official, unprecedented-for-this-time-of-year Speaker's race. Via Quorum Report, here's Jim Keffer's statement:

"State Representative Jim Keffer (R-Eastland) announced today that he has filed his candidacy paperwork for Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives for the 81st Regular Session which will begin in January, 2009.

"Keffer said he will formerly announce his candidacy for Speaker at the Texas House Republican Caucus meeting scheduled for early this afternoon.

"During the past few days, a majority of the members of the Texas House have agreed that we need a new Speaker and most have stated that they would prefer the selection of a new Speaker upon adjournment of the Regular Session rather than by placing a call on the Speaker during the session."

"Keffer also challenged incumbent Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick to publicly join with him in committing to a three-term Speaker limit.

"In my opinion, Speaker Craddick needs to announce that he will not seek another term and let the members pursue a new Speaker's race," said Keffer. "However, if Craddick does pursue another term, I will aggressively challenge him and will welcome others to also enter the Speaker's race."

"Keffer also said he will pursue a House Resolution for a three-term limit for the Speaker's office to ensure that the power of the Speaker's office is used for the purpose of public service and nothing more.

"Craddick was first elected House Speaker in 2003 and is currently serving his third term that he narrowly won after a strong challenge by Plano Republican Brian McCall and Waxahachie Republican Jim Pitts this past January.

"Since Craddick took over as Speaker, Republicans have lost 7 seats in the Texas House and several Democrats who have supported Craddick have been defeated in Democratic primaries. Craddick has also been the first Speaker in over 35 years to be over-ruled on a point of order by the Texas House membership which occurred in early May. Upon completion of the current term, Craddick will have served 40 years in the Texas House.

"I am committed to the three-term limit and if elected by my colleagues I am committed to being a Republican House Speaker in a Republican majority who will honor the rules, respect each member's district, and pass good public policy."

As an aside, sources close to Keffer tell us that he has received calls from supporters in the district telling him that Craddick is attempting to recruit and fully fund a challenger for the next election.

QR notes in a subsequent item that Keffer filed today because "another House member had contacted Granbury mayor David Southern on behalf of Craddick in an effort to recruit him for a challenge. The member assured Southern that Craddick would fully fund the challenge to Keffer." Southern then confirmed the story to Keffer, but said he wouldn't run against him. What a tangled web, eh? Once again, stay tuned. And wonder how next week, the last week before sine die, could get any more action-packed.

Voter ID chaos in the Senate

How wrong I was to think that this week was going to be the calm before the storm.

Chaos broke out in the Texas Senate on Tuesday as Democrats blocked consideration of a voter identification bill after successfully arguing that the original vote wasn't properly counted.

Under Senate rules, two-thirds of the chamber, or 21 senators, must agree to bring a bill up for debate. Democrats hold 11 seats, just enough to block a bill from being considered if they vote together.

Democratic senators revolted after the original 19-9 vote was revealed, loudly arguing that Sen. John Whitmire was on the floor but his no vote wasn't counted.

"Right is right. Wrong is wrong. You tell the man I have a right to have my vote counted," Whitmire growled before slamming his fist on the desk.

After a few minutes of tense debate, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst allowed a re-vote. By that time, a sick Democratic senator made it to the floor to cast his vote.

The final vote was 21-11.

I'm told that pretty much everything in the Capitol came to a halt as this was playing out. Apparently, Whitmire went completely ballistic, for which I'm very grateful. I had predicted that Dewhurst would wait till Gallegos was not in Austin, then try to bring up HB218. Seems he didn't want to wait that long - I'm told Gallegos was there at the time. Oh, and that final vote should be 20-11, unless they're counting Dewhurst, because the Senate only has 31 members.

I'm sure there will be plenty more on this soon. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: According to Eye on Williamson, the "sick Democratic Senator" was Carlos Uresti. What a sleazy maneuver by David Dewhurst.

UPDATE: The newspapers and their blogs are weighing in now. DMN:

Democrats were able to prevent consideration of the voter ID bill when Sen. Carlos Uresti of San Antonio -- who had been absent with the flu -- suddenly walked out on the Senate floor just as a vote was being taken on whether to debate the measure.

Mr. Uresti was summoned from his apartment near the Capitol, where he had been resting, by his Democratic colleagues, and he scrambled to the Senate chamber. As he walked to his desk, he held up two fingers to signify his "no" vote.

[...]

Mr. Uresti's absence from the roll call Tuesday morning prompted Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, to quickly bring his voter ID bill up as the Senate started its agenda for the day.

Democrats immediately began looking for a way to halt the debate, but they lost an initial vote when Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, moved to cut off questions and begin polling members on the bill.

Mr. Dewhurst announced the vote as 19-9, enough to move forward on the legislation. That brought howls of protest from Democrats, including Sen. John Whitmire of Houston, who charged that his vote had not been counted.

"I have a right to have my vote counted," Mr. Whitmire said in a booming voice intended to be heard by Mr. Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate. Mr. Whitmire, the longest-serving current senator, cursed as he walked around the chamber, and Democrats began demanding a verification vote.

Mr. Dewhurst then warned Mr. Whitmire that he was about to be removed from the Senate chamber.

"You're going to compose yourself or you're going to leave this floor," Mr. Dewhurst announced from the Senate rostrum.

As Democrats prepared to use delaying tactics on the measure, Mr. Dewhurst said he would allow a second vote, insisting that it would make no difference in the final outcome. That was because one Republican's vote also was not counted in the 19-9 tally on the initial vote.

So Fraser wins the Co-Sleaze prize. Here's the Chron blog:

Republican Glen Hegar, R-Katy was absent during a roll-call vote needed to bring the bill up for debate. But Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst also counted Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston absent even though he had been on the floor mobilizing opposition to the bill.

Dewhurst announced that 19 senators voted for debate on the bill and 9 in opposition - which would have allowed the bill to proceed.

Whitmire was livid. He had momentarily visited the member's lounge.

"I have the right to have my vote reflected," an irritated Whitmire said, adding an expletive.
Dewhurst warned: "You are going to compose yourself, or you are going to leave the floor."

After some tense moments, Dewhurst agreed to call the roll again, guaranteeing that the outcome would not change.

By then, Hegar appeared on the floor.

And then, less than 10 seconds before reaching Uresti's name, the San Antonio freshman senator walked into the chamber - amid applause from several colleagues.

"He was in his office, throwing up all morning. He's sick as a dog," Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio said.

With Uresti's presence counted, Dewhurst announced the 20-11 vote total.

And the bill could not be considered "at present," he said.

Uresti immediately headed to the Senate lounge.

Better keep a cellphone close by, Carlos, just in case. Note that with Hegar's absence, had Whitmire's vote been properly counted, the whole thing would have ended right there, as the 19-10 margin would have been enough to keep the bill under wraps. But that would have been a lot less dramatic.

Finally, Postcards from the Lege:

Whitmire was not on the floor at the time Dewhurst asked for a roll call vote to suspend the rules to discuss the bill. Whitmire was in a back room and entered after the vote had been taken.

In spite of Dewhurst's insistence that he called Whitmire's name several times before slamming down the gavel on the roll call, Whitmire contended that he was on the floor all the while marshaling forces to defeat the bill.

The vote was 19-9, a two-thirds majority necessary to bring the bill to the floor.

"That's dirty," Van de Putte muttered in the direction of Dewhurst.

Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, the author of the bill agreed to another vote count, but only after Van de Putte rose to speak. When asked upon which reading she intended to speak, she said, "Whenever I can stop this bill, Mr. President."

Her speech didn't stop the bill. The recount did. As the names of the senators were read alphabetically, Sen. Carlos Uresti, D-San Antonio, made a dramatic entrance to cast a "no" vote. A few moments earlier, fellow Democrat Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, had asked that Uresti be given some consideration because he was sick and not in attendance.

As he strode toward his desk, fellow Democrats, who seemed genuinely surprised, applauded Uresti.

As do I. Thank you, Sen. Uresti.

The state of the Speaker's race

So do we have a real anti-Speaker insurgency in the House or is it just noise? "Maybe," says the Chron.

One anti-Craddick faction includes the dissident Democrats and Republicans in the House minority who tried unsuccessfully to unseat him in January and have been at odds with the speaker all session.

Now, there also is an emerging group of Craddick "loyalists," including some committee chairmen, who want a change before the session ends May 28, said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston, a longtime Craddick critic.

Still, Coleman said the odds of successfully unseating Craddick with a rare motion to vacate the chair were no better than "50-50."

"There are more than 76 House members (a majority) who want a new speaker. There are not 76 votes for any one person (successor) at this point," Coleman said.

But conservative grass-roots activists are concerned enough to contact Republican House members on the speaker's behalf. And Craddick was meeting privately with some legislators to reaffirm his support.

"There is a strong effort on the part of Democrats to make this (leadership change) happen, and a strong effort on the part of some Republicans," said Rep. Fred Hill, R-Richardson.

"Republicans have to decide whether they want to be a party to something that removes the first Republican speaker in (modern times), and that's a big hurdle," he added.

Hill, chairman of the House Local Government Ways and Means Committee, said he hasn't decided what he will do if the potential challenge, which is creating a stir among House members, comes to a head.

Craddick, he added, has maintained most of the control of the House in his own hands but has given little clout to his chairmen, his "middle management" team.

"Maybe," says the Morning News.

"The movement has attracted some people that would surprise you," said Local Ways and Means Chairman Fred Hill, R-Richardson. "It surprised me."

Asked whether it would happen Monday, another GOP leader said: "We don't have our act together just yet. ... There's a lot to be worked out still."

But to hear many House members tell it, it's a matter of when, not if. That would be a surprising downfall for a man who has ruled the chamber with absolute authority since 2003, when he earned the job he toiled three decades in the House to get.

[...]

Mr. Craddick has a lot working in his favor. Timing, for one - lawmakers still have bills they want to get passed, and the legislative process could grind to a halt if the House descends into a leadership void. Plus, the speaker sits on a massive campaign war chest that he could use to reward supporters - or punish coup leaders.

But plenty of people say a showdown is coming.

"Someone's going to make the motion, yes," to unseat the speaker, said a GOP committee chairman standing strongly with Mr. Craddick. "What do the Democrats have to lose?"

Asked whether they would prevail, though, he paused - the strength of his conviction (or lack thereof) apparent in his choice of words: "If I were a betting man, I'd say - probably not."

"Maybe not," says Burka.

Yesterday was a bad day for the insurgency. It's one thing to have a floor strategy of parliamentary maneuvers designed to loosen Tom Craddick's hold on the speakership, and it's quite another to pull together a disparite group of disgruntled members into a united front capable of bringing him down. No one appears to be capable of doing the latter. Consequently, the movement to oust Craddick from the chair has lost its focus. Instead of concentrating on how to achieve their objective, the plotters have fallen out among themselves over who should be the next speaker. Keffer, McCall, Pitts, and Talton all have their adherents and their critics. Geren says he's out.

Burka goes on to criticize BOR for these two posts that call out Jim Keffer for being a Craddick in sheep's clothing, and concludes:

The insurgents's point of view ought to be, ANYBODY is an improvement over Craddick. Any other attitude guarantees failure. Worries about Keffer or anybody else are premature. Keffer is a Republican. It should not come as a shock that he votes like a Republican. The issue--about Keffer, about all the wannabes--ought not be how he votes, but whether he has enough of a following to defeat Tom Craddick. The right questions to ask about the speaker hopefuls are: Can he win? How he would run the House? Would he make fair committee appointments? Would he make fair parliamentary rulings?

While I agree with Burka that these are the right questions to ask, I don't see why looking at Keffer's (or anyone else's) record is a bad way of trying to answer those questions. Nor do I see why it's unreasonable to conclude that any one of the alternatives may not represent an improvement. It would be nice if everyone agreed on these things, and for sure any arguing among the rebels weakens their cause, but let's not lose sight of what we're fighting for.

And speaking of cameras

Well, if you don't like red light cameras, you certainly won't like downtown surveillance cameras.

[The Houston Police Department] is pushing ahead with plans to install more than a dozen closed-circuit video cameras downtown and across Houston, hoping the devices can deter crime and illegal dumping.

Downtown, four cameras could be in place in a matter of weeks. They would monitor street-level activity in the blocks of Main just south of Buffalo Bayou, where there's a high concentration of nightclubs and restaurants.

"What I'm hoping is to have some behavior modifications, in terms of giving the public an expectation that the police are there, or at least watching to some extent the activity in these public venues," said Executive Assistant Chief Martha Montalvo.

The department hopes the cameras, which will be identified with signs so people know they're under surveillance, will help them monitor late-night activity on weekends around Main Street's bars and restaurants. The idea is that the cameras would deter some crime, and allow for quicker response to incidents that do occur.

Additionally, the department plans to install and maintain as many as 13 cameras in secret locations across the city to deter illegal dumping in empty lots. That program, too, could expand, the department's chief financial officer, Joseph Fenninger, recently told City Council staffers.

Let's draw a distinction here between Main Street cameras and empty lot cameras, whose purpose is to catch those that dump trash. I at least am a lot more comfortable with the latter than I am with the former, as long as its focus is tightly defined.

The idea of using cameras for crime enforcement isn't new. Police in Baltimore and Chicago, for example, deploy them across their cities, sometimes with flashing lights affixed as a warning. Officials in both cities say they've seen crime reductions as a result.

In Houston, the idea has sparked some controversy, first with the red-light cameras, later with Chief Harold Hurtt's plan to use cameras to watch for downtown crime.

When Hurtt pitched the idea for public surveillance cameras in February 2006, he said, "If you're not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

That's not the point, said Melissa Ngo, with the Washington, D.C.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"I am a law-abiding citizen, yet I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea of being watched at all times," she said. "And not just being watched, being recorded for later viewing."

Some civil liberties advocates argue that arrays of cameras not only raise concerns about unwarranted government monitoring of the law-abiding public, but do little to reduce crime.

A camera by itself won't detect a crime that is occurring. They have to be monitored, said Randall Kallinen, a past president of Houston's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Unless you're watching really closely, it may be difficult to pick up on a crime," Kallinen said. "People watching the cameras grow bored really quickly."

I've discussed these points before, and I remain skeptical. At least with a red light camera, you can make the claim that it's only being used when a crime is actually occurring. I didn't understand the justification for the downtown cameras last year when they were first proposed, and I don't understand it now. I'd much rather see a commitment made to bring a greater police presence to downtown than to try this poor substitute.

Still more red light cameras

Matt Stiles has the latest batch of red light camera locations around town. I'm fascinated at how many of them overall so far have been at freeway intersections. I presume these are all TxDOT right-of-ways, which means that their revenues would be subject to the Carona bill. Regardless, what is it about these intersections that makes them so apparently prone to red light running? Leave your hypotheses in the comments. And if you haven't already seen it, here's Jim Thompson's Google map of the red light locations (with an afterword here).

Prom night

I never went to a prom - it wasn't that big a deal at Stuyvesant back when I attended - so perhaps I'm the wrong person to comment on this story, since my general reaction is "who really cares?" But as the father of two girls, I know this is looming in my future, so I'd better be prepared.

In the high school fairy tale, senior prom is the pinnacle of every student's senior year. But that's not the reality everywhere.

Prom attendance throughout the Houston area varies drastically from school to school. At some, a vast majority of seniors attended their final school dance. But at other campuses, including Davis, just north of downtown, and Westbury High School, in southwest Houston, more than one-third of soon-to-be graduates skipped the party.

The reasons vary. Students at some schools say the cost is a big deterrent -- especially as prom has ballooned into an estimated $6.6 billion industry. Prom attendees now dish out about $1,200 for the evening's expenses, said Christa Vagnozzi, editor of PromSpot.com, which offers teens hair and dress advice along with cost-saving tips for the big night.

[...]

In her area of town, Little thinks peer pressure drove up attendance for the Cinco Ranch prom. At that school, it's a given that students will go to the dance, she said. How they arrive is what matters.

"There is a lot of competition: every group is trying to beat the other group," she said.

The 18-year-old paid about $2,000 for her big night. That included her dress, getting her hair and nails done, going to the tanning booth, the limo, buying dinner, helping with rent at the Galveston beach house and, of course, the prom ticket, which at Cinco Ranch was only $30.

She said attending dances -- homecomings and now prom -- is just part of the culture at her school. At first, the cost rattled her parents. Once upon a time, after all, proms were held in high school gyms, not luxury hotels. But Little has worked hard to convince them how important this one dance can be to a teenage girl.

"My parents pretty much think it's ridiculous," she said. "They helped me out, but they think it's ridiculous."

Put me down for "ridiculous". I refuse to get caught up, or to let my kids get caught up, in this kind of rat race. I cannot envision giving Olivia or Audrey two thousand dollars to spend on prom preparations. If they want that kind of experience, they'll have to pay for a significant piece of it themselves. I'd be willing to do a one-for-one match, but to me, this is not an entitlement. If that makes me a hardass, at least I've got about fifteen years to work on the lecture that'll have to go along with it. What do you think?

How about best five out of nine?

So one of the local referenda on last Saturday's ballot was a smoking ban ordinance for Baytown. It passed, just as it had passed last November when it was voted on previously. That hasn't stopped the opponents of said ban from vowing to try again, on the grounds that some day, sooner or later, the voters will see it their way.

Voters in Baytown on Saturday upheld a city ordinance that prohibits smoking in public places. More than 58 percent voted in favor of the comprehensive indoor-smoking restrictions. The measure was first approved by voters in November.

[...]

After Saturday's election, James Haarmeyer, a spokesman for the Baytown Property Rights organization, said the smoking ordinance is not a done deal.

Haarmeyer expressed disappointment after the votes were counted and vowed to petition to bring the same issue back to the voters in November.

"The city's charter does not restrict us from getting another vote and the city can't amend the charter to prevent it until May of 2008, which would be after the November election," he said.

Haarmeyer admits the fight has cost both sides thousands of dollars but strongly believes ordinances should not dictate smoking policy for business owners.

Members of the Baytown Citizens for Property Rights say their personal freedoms are being eroded because of the smoking restrictions. The group was seeking a repeal of the city's current smoking ordinance and to revert to its original ordinance that permits smoking in bars and public places that have designated smoking areas with separate ventilation systems.

Bruce Kennedy, a doctor and spokesman for Baytown's smoke-free coalition, said the majority of the city's voters have now "spoken twice" in support of a ban on smoking in public places.

The stricter smoking measure, which took effect Dec. 1, passed in November with 57 percent voter approval.

Anybody else get the impression that Mr. Haarmeyer needs to learn how to take "No!" for an answer? I at least can't see why he thinks the next vote will be different.

More city pension woes

This doesn't look good.

Short of layoffs, the city won't meet its full obligation to the municipal pension fund in the next fiscal year, Mayor Bill White says, citing rising public safety and health care costs that are expected to strain resources.

In the next budget, expected to be unveiled Wednesday, White's administration will propose paying only two-thirds of the statutorily required pension contribution -- an arrangement that still would need approval from a skeptical pension fund board.

The employee retirement plan continues to be a challenge for White, who inherited a $1.9 billion unfunded liability in the pension fund when he took office in 2004.

[...]

Facing the prospect of having to make huge annual contributions to comply with state law, the city got the fund's board to agree in 2004 to reduced payments for the past three years. The contribution was to increase in this year's budget.

Douglas Benton, a vice president and senior credit officer with Moody's Investor's Service, said the city has in recent years contributed "low" amounts to its municipal pension.

"The trend in underfunding of pensions is something we've seen in other cities across the country," he said. "To say one concern or challenge would outweigh a decision on the rating assignment would not be fair."

In February, Moody's assigned Houston an Aa3 rating, a strong indicator, and assigned a positive outlook. Still, the analysis said the city's long-term expenditure challenges for pensions and other retirement benefits would require "close surveillance" in the future.

Controller Annise Parker said she's concerned the city hasn't started negotiations with the pension fund, but she said the statutorily required contribution -- roughly 24 percent of payroll -- isn't supportable.

I'm going to wait and see on this. For some background on the 2004 pension opt-out referendum, see here, here, here, and here. And by the way, if you think what the city of Houston is going through is fun, at least it's trying to confront the problem. That stands in stark contrast to the State of Texas and our official Rubber Stamp, Comptroller Susan Combs, whose head is firmly buried in the sand regarding the state's future pension liabilities. There's a future legislative session that will make all previous ones look like a kindergarten picnic once this puppy comes due.

Lobbying for Craddick

If my previous entry isn't enough to convince you that House Speaker Tom Craddick's closest buddies are worried about his existential future, consider the following email, which was sent today to all members of the Lege:

From: Texas Alliance for Life
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:08 AM
Subject: Representative, we urge you to OPPOSE any attempt to unseat the Speaker.

May 14, 2007

RE: Please OPPOSE any attempt to unseat the Speaker

Dear Representative ,

We have heard a rumor that there may be an attempt to unseat the Speaker early this week. We strongly urge you to OPPOSE any such attempt.

Texas Alliance for Life categorically opposes any attempt to unseat the Speaker. We will score any vote to unseat the Speaker as an anti-life vote.

Any attempt to remove the speaker is bad for Texas, and it is bad for the pro-life movement. The ensuing chaos that would likely follow such an attempt -- successful or not -- would probably mean the death even the least controversial bills, including our pro-life bills.

If you need any further information, please contact me at 512-477-1244 (o), 512-736-3708 (m), or [email protected]. In advance, we thank you.

Sincerely,

Joe Pojman, Ph.D.
Executive Director

Legislative advertising paid for by Texas Alliance for Life, Inc
2026 Guadalupe Street * Austin, Texas 78705 *
512-477-1244

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I do know there are some pretty specific laws concerning the politics of a Speaker's race. Perhaps someone better versed in the law than I can comment on how the above email jibes with this:

§ 302.017. CONTRIBUTIONS AND LOANS FROM ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a corporation, partnership, association, firm, union, foundation, committee, club, or other organization or group of persons may not contribute or lend or promise to contribute or lend money or other things of value to a speaker candidate or to any other person, directly or indirectly, to aid or defeat the election of a speaker candidate.

b) This section does not apply to a loan made in the due course of business to a speaker candidate for campaign purposes by a corporation that is legally engaged in the business of ending money and that has continuously conducted the business for more than one year before making the loan to the speaker candidate.

Would that email from the Texas Alliance for Life, with its direct statement about how a legislator's actions in a Speaker's race would affect the TAL's evaluation of them, count as a "thing of value"? Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. The question is whether or not someone will ask Ronnie Earle for his opinion. Once again, stay tuned.

UPDATE: Burka talks to Buck Wood, who says this is technically a violation of the law, but one that's highly unlikely to be prosecuted.

Speaker's Race II: The Wrath of Tom

Clay Robison looks back at last week's parliamentary revolt in the House and speculates about Speaker Tom Craddick's future.

A speaker's race, with or without Craddick, is all but assured in advance of the next regular session two years from now, and its outcome will partly be determined by next year's legislative races. Republicans hold an 81-69 edge in the House, meaning that a net gain of six Democratic seats (the same number the Ds gained during the last cycle) would throw the House into a partisan tie.

Even more modest Democratic gains could result in the election of a new speaker in 2009, provided dissident Democrats and their Republican allies aren't outmaneuvered and out-muscled by Craddick, as they were in January, when the veteran lawmaker from Midland beat back a challenge by fellow Republican Jim Pitts of Waxahachie.

The speaker's rare loss of a parliamentary fight last week -- following a couple of more minor setbacks recently -- quickened the pulses of Craddick's opponents to the point that, by week's end, some even were contemplating the possibility of trying to unseat him before this session adjourns on May 28.

That would require an almost-unheard-of motion to vacate the chair. Such a step would be extremely difficult to pull off, because it would require most House members not only to turn on the speaker but also to agree on a successor.

The more likely scenario is that the session ends, Craddick (if he is running again) actively solicits pledge cards from members, and would-be challengers of both parties seek support and weigh their chances.

Except that, according to Burka, a motion to vacate the Chair is apparently in the works. At the very least, Craddick supporters are worried about it enough to take action. Burka prints an email from the chair of the Texas Republican County Chairman's Association, which sounds the alarm and tells people to contact their member in support of Craddick. This is, as he says, completely unprecedented.

From what I understand, the week after the deadline for second- and third-readings of bills is normally pretty tranquil, with the real frenzy occurring in the last week. As with so many things this session, it looks like what's normal is not what will happen. Stay tuned.

Weingarten begins process for River Oaks demolition

Houstonist brings the latest update on the River Oaks Shopping Center redevelopment:

Weingarten Realty Investors, which owns all three properties, on Monday began the process to get approval to demolish the curved section of the River Oaks center on the north side of West Gray -- the portion of the center set to become the site of a new, two-story shopping strip. Weingarten's first step was to file for a certificate of appropriateness -- which is required because the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission began the landmark designation process for the structures last month -- and its next step will be to wait. The HAHC will consider the certificate at its May 23 meeting; if the commission denies Weingarten the certificate, the company will have to wait until Aug. 7, 90 days after it applied for the COA, to actually get demolition permits. (That 90-day waiting period is the best protection the city's preservation ordinance offers structures that aren't designated protected city landmarks -- and few of them are.)

There's more at the link, so click over. Anybody out there take up Lisa Gray's suggestion to spend a few bucks at the Alabama BookStop two weeks ago? This was the result of my trip there. It's Olivia's current favorite book - I think we've already read it fifty times. Leave a comment if you went trekking to the BookStop recently. I'm genuinely curious to know if there was a spike in business there as a result of her column, and if so if Weingarten and/or Barnes and Nobles noticed it.

More public funding for the Astrodome Hotel?

When last we looked, there was talk of Harris County being the financier for the proposed Astrodome Hotel, as private financing had not come through. Now there may be another public avenue for the project, thanks to the Legislature.

Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, amended a House bill to qualify the project for hotel and sales tax rebates, which could total $150 million over 10 years.

"We have a national icon sitting unused," Janek said. "They want the ability to convert the Astrodome into something useful. If you build a hotel, it lets you keep the taxes you generate. The money wouldn't be there, but for the existence of that hotel."

Looking ahead in the story, the bill Janek amended is HB 3694.

Astrodome Redevelopment Corp., the private entity seeking to transform the so-called "Eighth Wonder of the World" into a luxury hotel, is counting on the future rebates to help it secure financing for the $450 million project.

"This could be the critical piece that puts them over the top, that allows this to work," County Judge Ed Emmett said. "If it's something that will help make it work, I'm willing to throw that in the mix."

Emmett noted that the county won't receive any money until the hotel is up and operating, and says it is a "long shot" such rebates would make a big difference in the overall scheme of things. "We're not putting the money into it, it's the people who choose to stay there," he said. "The county should not put any taxpayer dollars into it."

[...]

"There are a number of hurdles we need to cross before that comes to fruition," said Franklin Jones, Astrodome Redevelopment's lawyer. "The county expects a private developer to do the heavy lifting."

The county can choose to do whatever it wants with the rebate money, Jones said, adding that "we hope to benefit from whatever they do."

The city of Houston used the same approach, known as the Texas Enterprise Zone program, as a vehicle to help develop the Hilton Americas next to the George R. Brown Convention Center. The program is being updated this session with House Bill 3694, which already has passed the House.

Janek changed the bill's language to qualify a county-sponsored hotel. His amendment passed out of the subcommittee on Emerging Technologies & Economic Development, which he chairs. It must now go to the Business & Commerce Committee before heading to the full Senate for a vote.

"If we are able to bring a hotel to that complex, this would generate additional funds. It would be the prudent thing to do," said Mike Surface, chairman of the Harris County Sports & Convention Corp., which manages Reliant Park. "The rebate would be used for additional park enhancements. We hold a firm line that we want the hotel to be privately funded."

OK, so if I'm reading this correctly, the possibility of these rebates would act as a form of collateral, thus (one hopes) enabling Astrodome Redevelopment Co. to secure the private financing that has thus far eluded it. And just in time, it would seem:

The Sports & Convention Corp. set a June 1 deadline for Astrodome Redevelopment to prove it has lined up financing.

Astrodome Redevelopment appears to be proceeding as expected, Surface said, but he did not rule out finding another developer if it is unsuccessful.

Which means new deadlines, new options, and so on. It may yet be awhile before we know the true fate of the Dome.

Talking 'bout my generation

I love this.

Pete Townshend probably never imagined this generation singing his song.

A group of 40 British seniors (average age: 78) called The Zimmers scored a YouTube hit, gleefully singing The Who's My Generation in a video that has been viewed by 1.5 million people since its posting April 2.

In it, they smash guitars. They re-create The Beatles' walk across Abbey Road. They hold up a sign saying, "I'm bored in old people's homes."

And now American talk shows, such as The Ellen DeGeneres Show, are calling. A download will be available May 21 at British iTunes. A BBC documentary featuring the group, Power to the People, airs May 28, the same day the CD single of My Generation goes on sale.

"We're hoping to be at No. 1 for at least two weeks," says the group's manager, Neil Reed.

Here's the video. It's a hoot, as well as being a pretty decent arrangement of the song. All I know is that if you really are only as old as you feel, then there's nothing at all incongruous about singing "Hope I die before I get old" when you're 90. May I feel that way at that age, too.

The commercial side of the Art Car Parade

I took Olivia to her first Art Car Parade yesterday. She really enjoyed it, as did I. It's a great event, one of the things that really makes Houston what it is. It's grown phenominally in recent years, and with that has come some concerns about the soul of the event.

[T]e sight of corporate sponsors has some longtime art car supporters worrying that commercialization will take some of the funk out of the traditionally counterculture parade.

"The problem is that any time you have something like this that starts out as an outlaw thing, it's all totally cool and everybody wants to be involved with it 'cause it's cool,'" said Jackie Harris, one of the parade's originators, who drives a vehicle known as the Fruitmobile.

"But then it gets bigger and bigger. It's just like a snowball, and the bigger a snowball gets the more cling-ons you get."

Although the brain child of the art community, Houston's art car parade has steadily gained the attention of businesses big and small. Just up the parade line from the SpawMaxwell vehicle -- after a car shaped like giant tree, one like an underwater monster and another covered in beads -- was a giant, drivable Starbucks cup, paid for by the coffee company, but built by a local artist. Elsewhere in line was a McDonald's car shaped like a shoe, a Bubbles Car Wash Hummer that spews bubbles and, yes, a Houston Chronicle car in the shape of a giant star.

The Ronald McDonald Shoe Car was a bit jarring, I admit. But what the hell. It may have been a lot slicker than most of the homegrown entries, but it can be judged on its own merits. I like the approach that the Orange Show has taken:

These corporate-sponsored art cars have become common enough that this year the Orange Show Center for Visionary Arts, which runs the historically funky event, created a special awards category for them.

"Over the past two to three years there have been these really awesome creative cars that definitely qualify as art cars, but are sponsored by corporations," said Kim Stoilis, artistic director for the organization. "We recognized a need to recognize our sponsors and recognize our artists who are creating these."

Stoilis said organizers like her know they need business support to keep up the event, which started in Houston 20 years ago and has inspired copycat parades nationwide. But they wanted to find a way to reward those companies that really "get it," meaning they make an effort to do something interesting with their cars.

I look at it this way: There's plenty of counterculture, anti-corporatism, and other freestyle acts of nonconformism on display at the Art Car Parade. If the corporate sponsors are comfortable co-existing with that, then it's all good by me. I think the parade has hit a sweet spot in maintaining its viability, adjusting to the reality of its vast popularity, and keeping its soul more or less intact.

All of my Art Car Parade photos can be found here, for those who are interested.

Election wrapup: Farmers Branch

As predicted, the city ordinance to make renting an apartment to an undocumented immigrant was ratified by the voters in Farmers Branch.

With all votes counted, the bitterly contested ordinance passed by 67 percent of the vote.

"We are fed up with the federal government's inaction on immigration," said City Councilman Tim O'Hare, who sponsored the rental ban. "We are not going to wait. We are going to take care of it."

Bill Brewer, a Dallas lawyer who has filed two lawsuits against the rental measure and financed much of the campaign against it, said he would ask for a court to enjoin enforcement "very soon."

"If this ordinance was intended, as we believe, to target Latinos and drive them out, that is unconstitutional and we think the courts will agree," he said.

Nina Perales, southwest regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said her group would act quickly to prevent the ordinance from going into force.

If not blocked in court, it will go into effect on May 22.

I underestimated the margin of victory, but nothing else about this surprises me.

Over the past 30 years, Hispanics have come to make up nearly 40 percent of the city's 28,500 residents.

O'Hare and other ordinance supporters have said many of the city's Spanish speakers are in the country illegally. They contend the newcomers have brought crime, dragged down property values and lowered achievement in public schools.

They're lying on all three counts, not that it really mattered. This was never about reality but about emotion.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think might happen to Farmers Branch's economy and property values if all of those Hispanic folks decided to pack up and leave, now that they know how unwelcome they are? It won't happen, but it would be pretty poetic if it did.

Election wrapup: New Braunfels

The tubers won a victory yesterday as the recall effort against New Braunfels City Council member Ken Valentine was a success.

Voters turned District 6 Councilman Ken Valentine out of office Saturday in a successful recall effort spurred largely by anger over Valentine's advocacy of strict new rules for tourists floating the Comal and Guadalupe rivers.

"I'm disappointed in the result," Valentine said. "Over the last few years, I've served District 6 with but one objective, to make New Braunfels a better place to live and work. But the voters have spoken. So be it."

[...]

The recall effort was failing by 50 votes when the early votes were tallied. But the voters in favor of the recall turned out in force on Saturday, carrying the election day vote by a margin of more than 2-to-1.

"I was really kind of surprised, since I was ahead by 50 on early voting," Valentine said. "It was a phenomenal switch."

Valentine was the council's leading proponent of controversial rules aimed at taming the rowdy, drunken behavior that has bothered riverfront residents for years.

He helped persuade a majority of the council to ban Jell-O shots and beer bongs, adopt one of the country's strictest noise ordinances and prohibit alcohol in riverfront parks.

But the measure that caused the biggest backlash limited the size of coolers allowed on the rivers.

Recall proponents said Valentine was preoccupied with river issues and did not pay enough attention to other city problems. And they criticized his style on the council as too confrontational.

Valentine had said he would strongly consider running for the seat again in November if he lost the recall. But on Saturday night, he said he needs to think about it.

"It's a shame there has been so much emotion and acrimony over tubing rules," Valentine said. "It's just incredible."

The final tally, which you can see here, was 508 for the recall, and 438 against. My congratulations to the folks at Keep NBNB for their triumph.

Election wrapup: Houston City Council

As we know, Melissa Noriega came close to getting a clear majority of the vote in yesterday's City Council special election, but fell just short. She will be in a runoff with Roy Morales.

Noriega, a Houston Independent School District special projects manager with strong campaign funding and key support, was widely viewed as the frontrunner in the 11-candidate field. Morales, a member of the Harris County Board of Education, likely benefited from strong name identification because of a previous council run.

The winner of the June 16 runoff will complete the term of Sekula-Gibbs, who vacated the seat in the fall to serve a short term in the U.S. Congress. The seat will be on November's regular ballot for a full two-year term.

"We're very excited. We're very positive. We think it's great," Noriega said in an interview during her post-election party at a west Houston restaurant. "I'm real proud."

Noriega said she had hoped to win the race outright but wasn't surprised by the results, given the number of candidates.

"We've been prepared for the runoff all along," she said. She plans to take Mother's Day off today, then get back to campaigning.

[...]

Morales, who ran unsuccessfully for the council two years ago, had support from prominent Republicans, and he raised nearly $50,000, even after an initial misunderstanding in which city officials said he didn't qualify for the ballot.

He, too, expected the runoff.

"We had a few people that were conservatives," Morales said of other candidates on the ballot. "Now we all pull together and support one candidate."

He added, "Our support was excellent. What I hope is that we have more voters turn out in June."

I'm not exactly sure how the support Morales got was anything more than mediocre, but whatever.

Here's the thing: Usually in a race like this, support from the candidates who don't make the runoff is key. In this case, I figure most of Tom Nixon's voters will transfer to Morales. That still leaves him well short of Noriega, who garnered 15,729 votes while Morales and Nixon combined for 10,831. My gut instinct is that most of the remaining voters are more likely to sit out the runoff than participate, and those who do vote are more likely to support Noriega. I'd also guess that if any of the other candidates make an endorsement for the runoff, they'll probably go with Noriega. Morales just has a lot of ground to make up, and not a whole lot of room in which to do it.

Now of course he could try to get some folks who didn't vote this time around to come out on June 16. Morales didn't get a whole lot of establishment Republican support in the first go-round, but now that it's a two-person fight and the universe of potential voters is even smaller, that may change. If it does, we may see and hear more about the runoff than we did the general election, and if so it will probably be ugly. I don't know if this will happen or not, but it might.

So we'll see. Obviously, Noriega can't take anything for granted, but if she does any kind of decent job just getting her own voters out on June 16, she'll win. Stay tuned.

Runoff coming

Melissa Noriega came close to winning outright today, but fell a little short. Here are the totals. She got 46.5% of the vote, with Roy Morales coming in second at 18.7%. Total turnout was a shade over 4%. The runoff will be in June - I heard June 9 bandied about but can't confirm offhand - and I figure we're looking at 2% turnout for that one.

I'll have more in the morning, but it's over for now. You'll be seeing this picture again over the next 30 or so days. Good night.

Here come the bikini bars

As predicted, the local strip clubs have a Plan B: Reinventing themselves as bikini bars.

Topless and fully nude clubs could avoid regulation altogether if their dancers wear bikinis, or even skimpier opaque coverings, allowing them to get around the "sexually oriented" classification, police and city officials acknowledged.

That would allow the clubs to remain open at their current locations, despite an ordinance now prohibiting them from operating within 1,500 feet of churches, schools, parks and residential areas.

"If they do, that's within the law," said Capt. Steve Jett, who heads the Houston police vice division, which regulates the clubs, along with adult bookstores, "modeling" studios and other places now targeted under the ordinance.

"If they don't, we've got investigations already going, and we will continue those investigations and make arrests in the fairly near future," he said.

The clubs' strategy has been under consideration for some time, as the deep-pocketed leaders of Houston's adult industry have waged a court battle with the city since a tougher ordinance was passed in 1997.

I seem to recall, after the ordinance's initial passage, that some clubs started featuring dancers with latex covering their nipples, and fuller bikini bottoms instead of the standard G-string/thongs. Again, as I recall, this had to do with a different aspect of the ordinance, in which dancers had to have - and display on their bodies somewhere - a license that included their real names. The "extra coverage" was a way around that, and I suspect what we'll see is a return to that.

The question still remains as to what any such change would mean to the clubs' ability to turn a profit:

"In the industry, there has been significant discussion about how businesses could change their method of operation and become compliant under the ordinance," said the owner at one of Houston's largest topless clubs who asked for anonymity out of fear that his employees would be targeted first.

Such a loophole exists because the ordinance uses specified anatomical areas and activities to define sexually oriented businesses. If employees in the businesses strategically place opaque clothing on certain body parts, and they're careful not to simulate sexual acts, those operations would be exempt.

"If you have the proper coverage, then it takes you out of the ordinance," said Nelson Hensley, a lawyer who recently filed state lawsuits on behalf of some adult businesses related to amortization, a process of allowing them to recoup their investments before closing or moving.

With bikinis, the clubs would be able to operate anywhere, subject to state alcohol regulations and local deed restrictions, city lawyers said. They also wouldn't have to comply with other restrictions in the sexually oriented businesses ordinance, such as rules prohibiting close contact between entertainers and patrons.

What's not clear is whether those customers, used to seeing topless or nude entertainers, will stop visiting the establishments.

"I still think it will be a profitable business," said Thomas Venza, a manager at Centerfolds Adult Entertainment in the 6100 block of Richmond.

But some who support the ordinance disagree.

"They're going to be trying to adapt an ad-hoc business plan to an existing format. That isn't going to work," said City Councilman Adrian Garcia, a former police officer who chairs the council's public safety committee. "At some point, customers will be looking for the real thing, and they will be going somewhere else."

It's possible we'll start seeing new clubs open up outside of Houston's city limits. As for how the existing clubs will cope, it's anybody's guess. Maybe the latex thing will be close enough for most customers, especially if the threat of getting raided is basically eliminated. I'm in no position to know.

Toby Belch has a link to and excerpt from the ordinance itself. You can see why it will have such a drastic effect as written and enforced.

Get out there and vote!

It's May 12. You know what that means.

Vote first, then go to the Art Car Parade. Polls are open until 7 PM.

Farmers Branch mayor: Vote against the ordinance

Better late than never, I guess.

The mayor of the first city in Texas to forbid landlords from renting apartments to illegal immigrants is urging voters to strike down the ordinance.

It's the first time Mayor Bob Phelps has taken a public position against the measure, which was adopted in November and resulted in lawsuits and outcry from civil rights groups, residents, property owners and businesses.

[Today], voters in this Dallas suburb will become the first in the country to decide whether to repeal or approve a city ordinance that would ban apartment rentals to most illegal immigrants.

Phelps, former Mayor David Blair and former City Manager Richard Escalante all signed a letter Tuesday opposing the measure.

"The City should not waste millions of taxpayer's dollars to defend an ineffective ordinance that is likely never to become law," said the letter, which was an advertisement mailed by a group opposing the ordinance.

Documents reviewed by The Associated Press show that the city paid almost $262,000 in immigration-related legal fees, mostly with taxpayer money, through March. And the costs are expected to climb. Council members increased the city's legal budget last month to $444,000.

I'm more than glad to have Mayor Phelps on board with this - his colleague, former Mayor Blair was ahead of him on the issue - but I have to ask: Where was he while this piece of ignorance was being debated in his City Council? Call me crazy here, but I'm thinking he might have affected the debate a bit more efficiently back then.

Again, better late than never. But geez, what took him so long? Link via Dig Deeper Texas.

One bourbon, one scotch, and one lottery ticket

You know what I was thinking? I was thinking that what our great state's watering holes really needed was the ability to sell lottery tickets. And now, they may just get it.

The House gave final approval this afternoon to a bill by Rep. Chente Quintanilla, D-Tornillo, that would OK the sale of lottery tickets in bars. Plenty of people might wonder whether hawking lottery tickets around inebriated people is good public policy, but few in the House were asking any questions.

The bill passed with no debate, either last night on second reading or today, when it passed 116-21. One legislative aide explained that when the House took up the measure last night, the House's most ardent gambling opponents were stuck in some committee.

The commission estimated that it could raise $20 million over two years by expanding ticket sales to certain drinking establishments.

It's now been passed on third reading, so whatever happens next is up to the Senate. I should note that the Statesman blog puts its revenue estimate at $64 million. I'm not sure where the discrepancy is. The El Paso Times' Brandi Grissom quotes the bill's author:

"If a person is going to consume liquor, maybe they will consume less if they can sit there and buy lottery tickets," Quintanilla said.

Plus, he said, hopefully it will bring in more lottery money to send to schools.

Um, okay. Given how stacked against you the Lottery is, I figure it'll lead to more drinking to drown the sorrow of losing. Alternately, I suppose a big winner might buy a round for the house. Either way, I don't see how less consumption is likely to follow. And if it did, that would mean less revenue for the state. Not enough to offset the increase from the lottery sales, perhaps, but still.

Anyway. Grissom also cited the $64 million figure, for what it's worth. Rep. Quintanilla is apparently looking for a Senate sponsor, so we'll see what happens.

Forty-one cents

Get ready for another postage increase on Monday.

Come Monday, postage for a first-class letter will rise to 41 cents. The last increase also was a 2-cent bump in January 2006.

For Mary Bermudez, 67, standing in line at the downtown Post Office Thursday, mailing is her communication method of choice since she isn't computer-savvy.

"The first stamp I can remember was a 3-cent stamp," Bermudez said. "It has gone up so many times. It's really ridiculous. Oh, well."

Bermudez had come to buy 2-cent stamps to use with leftover 39 cent stamps. She also bought a supply of the USPS' new "forever stamp."

The forever stamp, available since April 12, can be used regardless of future price hikes.

It proved a popular buy for customers at the 401 Franklin post office Thursday.

Yes, the forever stamp. Great idea, if you ask me. This isn't bad, either:

Andrew T. Gardener was purchasing rolls of new stamps Thursday.

He suggested the post office sell advertising on stamps similar to billion-dollar businesses like McDonald's.

"It would save the consumer. It's worth a try," Gardener said. "I think they need to be creative to come up with ideas to subsidize the cost."

Hey, if they cost a few pennies less, I'd buy corporate-sponsored stamps. I bet quite a few other folks would, too.

HB1892 veto coming

Game on.

Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday threatened to veto a transportation bill that includes a moratorium on toll roads and to call the Legislature back into special session even if lawmakers override his veto.

The bill -- House Bill 1892 -- would create a two-year moratorium on building new toll roads, but it also would give Harris County commissioners greater authority to build toll roads locally without the involvement of the Texas Department of Transportation.

Perry said the bill would seriously jeopardize transportation funding throughout Texas.

"The good news is, we still have time to fix it," Perry said. "If not, then I have no other option as the leader of this state than to bring the Legislature back until we address this issue and get Texas back to where it can have a vibrant transportation infrastructure."

Perry said his opposition to the bill has nothing to do with the moratorium provisions.

He said that, if the Legislature feels so strongly about the moratorium, it can send him a separate Senate bill pending in the House Calendars Committee that would establish the moratorium.

"I'll sign the moratorium bill tomorrow," Perry said. "This is not about a moratorium."

[...]

Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, the Senate sponsor, said he has been involved in negotiations with Perry's staff.

"We've agreed to terms and conditions that all parties in the room have agreed are satisfactory," Carona said.

[...]

Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, is the author of a toll road moratorium bill that was added to Smith's legislation. Nichols said he has been left out of the negotiations.

"It's going to be interesting to see if they come up with something that's acceptable to everybody if all the parties aren't sitting at the table," Nichols said.

Didn't get to this earlier. There's still a lot of talk of compromise, but no action yet. The deadline for Perry to veto or not is Thursday. Stay tuned.

Exporting our bad ideas

Remember Rick Perry's grand idea to sell the Lottery? Perhaps you've forgotten, since the last I can recall hearing about it was in February, and as far as I can tell it's deader than Generalissimo Franco. But just to prove that no idea in politics is too stupid to be universally rejected, here comes California with the same dollar signs dancing around their heads.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is poised to call for privatizing the state lottery, a move that would bring California a cash infusion of as much as $37 billion to help solve pressing budget problems but also could sacrifice a major revenue source for decades to come.

The lottery would be leased to a private company for up to 40 years in exchange for a lump-sum payment or series of payments, according to documents from the governor's budget office that were provided to legislative staff and obtained by The Times. If lawmakers were to sign off on such a plan, California could become the first state to privatize its lottery.

Schwarzenegger will issue a revised budget proposal Monday that is expected to contain the lottery plan.

Adam Mendelsohn, Schwarzenegger's communications director, confirmed that the governor's staff had been working with investment banks on the plan. He said private companies could do a better job of running the lottery than the state, resulting in more Californians playing and the largest possible cash infusion.

"California has one of the lowest-performing lotteries in the country," he said. "Taxpayers could see two to three times more money go into state coffers."

[...]

The plan is certain to be controversial, with opposition likely from activists who are seeking to stop further expansion of gaming in the state, as well as fiscal conservatives who are uneasy with trading off future revenue for easy cash now. But it also is likely to entice both Democrats and Republicans desperate to find funding for programs they support without having to resort to a tax hike.

The easy way out is always a popular choice, isn't it? Learn from Texas, fellas (no, I can't believe I just said that, either). Handing off your problems to future generations is not a flattering quality to have. Link via Kevin Drum.

(Yes, I see that Illinois' Democratic Governor has the same idea as well. At least he has a specific immediate need for the cash infusion - fixing the state's pension fund. That doesn't make this not a bad idea, however.)

City to SOBs: Move it or lose it

The long-awaited crackdown on sexually oriented businesses is officially underway, and it's aggressive.

The city has ordered more than 100 adult cabarets, bookstores and other so-called sexually oriented businesses to close down their operations or face criminal and civil penalties, according to warning letters obtained by the Houston Chronicle.

City Attorney Arturo Michel's office mailed the certified letters on Thursday, stating that the businesses were violating an ordinance prohibiting them from operating within 1,500 feet of schools, parks, churches and other "sensitive" locations in the city.

The cease-and-desist letters mean that employees and owners of the businesses face arrest "soon" if they fail to heed the city's notice, said Capt. Steve Jett, who commands the Houston Police Department's vice unit.

"They need to close up," he said. "We wanted to give them fair warning."

Matt Stiles has a link to a list of the businesses that received the letter. There are a few curiosities on it, so it's probably not gospel, but close enough. If you're looking for one last fling at your favorite strip club, for old times' sake, better not wait too long.

Club owners and attorneys reached late Thursday declined to comment out of fear they could jeopardize their employees and businesses first. Some also have notified [federal judge Nancy] Atlas' court that they intend to appeal her ruling.

A manager at one establishment said he was disappointed to hear of the city's crackdown.

"It's hard to legislate morality," said Thomas Venza, a manager at Centerfolds Adult Entertainment, in the 6100 block of Richmond. "If you don't agree with it, don't go."

At least nine businesses have filed new lawsuits in state courts here in recent weeks, challenging the ordinance's provision for "amortization," a process by which the city could let clubs operate for a period after the law takes effect so owners can recoup their investments before moving or closing.

I'm not sure how much juice there is left in the legal wrangling aspect of this. As you know, I think this is a bad ordinance, and I hate the ruling, but I don't see how it gets overturned. I also wonder, if this law were to be put up for a vote how it would fare. Not that it matters, I suppose. I'm just pondering.

Privately, industry officials said they think the city's crackdown is unfair, noting that they are lawful businesses that contribute millions of dollars to the local economy through employment and sales taxes.

Some also decry that all such businesses are linked together in one ordinance.

They see a distinction between adult cabaret clubs, which require multiple permits because their businesses depend on liquor and food sales, from modeling studios and spas, some of which police say are nothing more than fronts for prostitution.

Those distinctions have not been important to elected officials and police, who plan to begin enforcement as soon as next week.

I don't think there's anything "private" about how "industry officials" feel about this law. They're getting screwed, and they've put ten years of courtroom fighting into preventing it. For what it's worth, I think their view is largely correct. I just don't think it's any big secret.

As before, I wouldn't consider the comments to be particularly indicative of public opinion, but one comment, on page two (I can't link to it directly, as far as I can tell), is intriguing:

The current plan is for all of the clubs to turn into "bikini bars." All will be the same, except for no truly topless dancers. When this happens, and the dancers are "clothed" all bets are off for rules about touching customers, etc. They can no longer be regulated by Vice & TABC as Sexually Oriented Businesses. In other words... anything goes!

While I think that would keep some clubs in business, my guess is most of them would still fold, though perhaps not right away. I dimly recall a TV news story shortly after the original ordinance was passed that informed us that the male-stripper club La Bare was not technically an SOB because the dancers were sufficiently covered. Maybe Treasures et al can ask them for a few pointers about that.

UPDATE: Do the Rockets Power Dancers have anything to worry about? Get me Captain Jett on the line!

Care to revise and extend your turnout estimate?

Remember when the Harris County Clerk's office projected eight percent turnout for tomorrow's election? How optimistic they were.

A turnout of 5 percent to 6 percent is expected for Saturday's joint election based on the number of people who voted early.

Only about 1.5 percent of registered voters took part in the early voting that ended on Tuesday, said David Beirne, spokesman for the Harris County Clerk's Office.

"There is nothing on the ballot that is drawing in voters," Beirne said.

In Houston, a special election is being held to fill the City Council seat vacated by Shelley Sekula-Gibbs. Eleven candidates are running.

Fewer than 13,000 city residents cast ballots during early voting, indicating the council race hasn't sparked great interest, Beirne said.

Which means that my own projection of five percent turnout was also way too sunny. I'm now putting the over/under line at three percent. That would make this slightly less robust than the 2005 City Council runoff (PDF) between Sue Lovell and Jay Aiyer. It also means that you'll be voting for the equivalent of at least 30 people, not just 20. Which in turn means it's time for this again:

Last chance to vote is tomorrow. You don't even want to think about how low turnout in a runoff would be, so do your best to avoid it and vote for Melissa Noriega. Polls will be open from 7 AM to 7 PM.

Metro "lawsuit" hearing on Tuesday

Via my comments and my email, it looks like there will be a hearing for the Section 202 petition against Metro that anti-rail crusader Daphne Scarbrough filed recently. The details, as I understand them:

Cause No. 2007-22066
Case link: http://apps.jims.hctx.net/courts/CaseInquiry.do?casenum=200722066
215th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas
Judge Levi Benton
Judge link: http://www.justex.net/Courts/Civil/CivilCourt.aspx?crt=17

Plaintiff rep: William A. "Andy" Taylor

Tues May 15, 2007 at 8:30 am
Case status = "active"
Case type = "depositions before suit (rule 202)"

Harris County Civil Court House, 13th Floor
201 Caroline, between Franklin and Congress
Map link: http://www.justex.net/DowntownMap.aspx
713 368-6330

Doors open at 8:00 am
Public allowed to attend and take notes
No photos during hearing

I have no idea what to expect. We'll see what happens.

CHIP administrative issues

State Rep. Garnet Coleman explains why legislative policies aren't the only reason why CHIP enrollment drops.

Administrative directives are policies that govern the administration of CHIP. These policies are not state laws, which must be established by the Texas Legislature, and they are not commission rules, which must be officially adopted by the commission. These policies may be created or changed at any time by the direction of HHSC Commissioner Albert Hawkins or other high-ranking administrators.

Policy changes made by the HHSC can happen at any time without notice to the Legislature -- it really can be done as easily as you turn a faucet on or off. Those changes are also issued with minimum notice to CHIP recipients; in fact, only two days' notice was given to many of the thousands of families whose children lost CHIP coverage this month. What happens to the children who had doctor appointments this week? How can they be expected to find new health coverage in two days time?

We must encourage HHSC to adopt policies and issue administrative directives that are inclusive, and not exclusive, for providing CHIP coverage for our children.

Remember, CHIP isn't an entitlement. It's an insurance program. Eligible families pay for CHIP coverage. Would you stand for this kind of administrative runaround from your health insurance provider? Eligibility for, and availability of, CHIP shouldn't be jerked around. It's neither compassionate nor prudent to operate this way.

Burka on SB1317

Paul Burka delves into the politics of anti-clean air bill SB1317 and how it wound up in the wrong committee in the House.

The bill addresses a legitimate issue, which is how far cities should be able to extend their jurisdiction. But this bill is not just about a fine point of law. It is about politics--2010 gubernatorial politics. [Lt. Gov. David] Dewhurst expects to be the Republican nominee, and his opponent is likely to be none other than Bill White. Here's what I don't get: Why does Dewhurst think it's good politics for him to be for this bill? This is going to be a TV spot for White! It is going to saturate the airwaves in Houston. "When Houston was trying to protect the public from toxic air pollution, where was David Dewhurst? He was protecting the polluters." What's Dewhurst going to say? "My opponent has it all wrong. Houston was abusing its authority at the expense of these good corporate citizens." Yeah, right. Dewhurst doesn't get it. This is not 2003. Clean air has become a huge issue in this state in the Republican suburbs, which is where the votes are.

Emphasis in the original. We ought to get a good preview of how this will play out in 2008, when bill sponsor Sen. Mike Jackson runs for re-election (assuming he doesn't retire; there have been rumors to that effect). Jackson's opponent, Joe Jaworski is already banging this drum, and he's sure to have the resources to run ads hammering Jackson for this bill. Jackson's district was modestly purple in 2006, slightly redder than the state as a whole but not by much. If Jaworski gets traction on this issue in SD11 next year, then watch out in 2010.

Burka also points the finger at Eddie Lucio, and prints a letter from a disgruntled now-former Republican. Matt Stiles has more from Mayor White's perspective. Check it out.

HB159 goes down

Good.

An attempt to overturn a groundbreaking 2001 Texas law allowing certain illegal immigrants to receive cheaper in-state tuition rates at state universities all but died in the House late Wednesday.

After Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, upheld a challenge to House Bill 159 on a technicality, the legislation's sponsor, Rep. Bill Zedler, R-Arlington,said it was too late to bring the bill back to the floor.

[...]

Zedler said he would look for an opportunity to attach the bill to other legislation during the session's waning days.

I'm sure he will. Eternal vigilance is still needed to ward off this kind of crap.

House Bill 159 would have amended the Texas Education Code, prohibiting illegal immigrants from being considered residents and eligible for the cheaper tuition.

Since 2001, 11,130 of the millions of students attending Texas higher education institutions have used the law to qualify for cheaper tuition at 81 state universities, health-related institutions and community, technical or state colleges.

The figure includes undocumented students and legal residents, according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.

Since Texas enacted the law, with strong bipartisan support and little opposition, nine other states have passed similar legislation.

But with Congress unable to find solutions to illegal immigration, state legislatures are struggling to decide whether to extend or deny in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

In other words, this bill was a scapegoat hunt. It deserved to die.

Two things to add here, both from Quorum Report. First, on the nature of the point of order that killed the bill:

For those prone to read tea leaves, Speaker Craddick's decision to uphold [Rep.] Tommy Merritt's point of order tonight was significant on a couple of points.

First, Merritt's move forestalled a potential test vote on benefits for illegal immigrants. Some thought this vote paralleled the vote taken on vouchers in 2005 that proved the litmus test leading to Leininger's millions in the 2006 primary season. Merritt, one of those targeted by the fabled Leininger Five, would have been more sensitive to that than most.

The background agreement tonight had been to allow that test vote -- on Noriega's amendment to gut the bill -- before sustaining a point of order raised by Noriega.

But Merritt was one step ahead with his point of order, which leads to the second major point.

The reverberations from Monday night's would-be putsch continue. Speaker Craddick had little choice but to sustain Merritt's point of order even though it voided the previous arrangement. In the end, though, the Speaker could not afford to stir up an already on-edge House with an overrule on an obvious point of order. With the House having already demonstrated a willingness to over rule the Chair, venturing too far from the rules could be risky business.

Make of that what you will. Secondly, on the bill analysis:

QR is not advised as to whether plagiarism constitutes valid grounds for a point of order, but we'd like to point out some striking similarities between the bill analysis for HB 159 and a column written in March 2003 by Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly.

HB 159, authored by Rep. Bill Zedler (R-Arlington), would repeal legislation passed in 2001 that allowed non-citizen Texas residents to pay in-state tuition at public universities. The topic, which was heavily debated in last year's gubernatorial election, seems likely to spur more rhetorical fireworks when its turn on the calendar arrives. That could happen as soon as later this afternoon.

Here's a side-by-side comparison of the HB 159 bill analysis with Schlafly's piece, entitled "In-State College Tuition For Illegal Aliens?":

-- From the analysis: "The monetary difference, which varies, can be more than $12,000 per student. This windfall was given despite the need for additional funding in Texas higher education."

From Ms. Schlafly: "The monetary difference, which varies from state to state, can be as high as $11,000 per year, and this windfall is given even though most state governments are crying about budget shortfalls because of the current state of our economy."

-- From the analysis: "Federal law (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623) states: 'an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State ... for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.'"

From Ms. Schlafly: "Federal law (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623) states: 'an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State ... for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.'"

-- From the analysis: "When Congress passed this law and President Clinton signed it in 1996, there was no misunderstanding about what this law meant. Conference Report 104-828 stated, 'this section provides that illegal aliens are not eligible for in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education.'"

From Ms. Schlafly: "There was no misunderstanding about what this law means, either when Congress passed it or when President Clinton signed it in 1996. Conference Report 104-828 stated, 'this section provides that illegal aliens are not eligible for in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education.'"

-- From the analysis: "Universities have circumvented this federal law by the 'loophole' of simply not asking or documenting whether student applicants are legally in this country."

From Ms. Schlafly: "The universities think they can circumvent this federal law by the 'loophole' of simply not asking student applicants whether or not they are legally in this country."

It must be noted that the grafs in the bill analysis did not bear any attribution. When asked, Zedler said he was unaware of the Schlafly column or any similarities between the bill analysis for his bill and the column. He noted that an analysis is sometimes written by the author's staff and sometimes by the committee staff.

Since this bill is all about higher ed, the question must be asked, Would the author of the analysis be able to submit this to his college professor and say it's original work?

So it wasn't just bad public policy, it was bad public policy by op-ed column. And wasn't that mighty nice of Rep. Zedler to blame the plagiarism on his underlings? What a guy.

Rep. Farrar's personal privilege speech on HB1098

The following speech was delivered on the floor of the House by Rep. Jessica Farrar after HB1098 became law without Governor Perry's signature:

Mr. Speaker and Members-

I come before you today to deliver the first personal privilege speech of my 13 year career with the House. I have always said that the day I got up here to speak, it would be on an issue that I felt was worthy. That issue is saving women's lives.

I knew in November of last year when I pre-filed HB 215 to require the HPV vaccine for girls entering the sixth grade that I was going to have an uphill battle. However, I had no idea that a medical breakthrough that prevents a form of cancer in women would be so unwelcome by this legislative body.

We all know that Gov. Perry issued his Executive Order on February 2 requiring the HPV vaccine for girls entering the sixth grade. HB 1098 by Rep. Bonnen followed and has effectively insured that Gov. Perry's Executive Order will never be implemented.

Yesterday, Governor Perry decided he would not veto HB 1098 due to the fact that he knows the legislature has the power to override his veto. Perhaps he also decided to not veto the bill for other reasons. I cannot speak on Gov. Perry's behalf nor do I want to. Instead, I am here today to speak for myself and the many girls and women affected by the fact that we as a legislative body have essentially blocked access to this life-saving vaccine for so many of our Texas girls.

When HB 1098 was debated on the floor, we heard Rep. Bonnen and others repeatedly say they had nothing against Texas families having access to the HPV vaccine for their daughters. I'm here to tell you that in blocking the school-based requirement for the vaccine, these people did indeed deny many of our girls access to the HPV vaccine.

After all, we live in Texas. Since this legislature is very much responsible for the fact that we do not have more and better healthcare programs for the children of our state, we should know that many Texas children do not have medical homes. They do not have the regular check-ups with their pediatricians that allow parents to hear about the newest medical advances. They are victims of a broken system that is made up of the haves and the have nots, and they are on the losing end.

Even the middle class that has access to some kind of health coverage has to limit when they see their doctors because they can't afford the insurance or the co-pays. For too many of our children, their interaction with the medical community comes in the form of emergency care, and that's it. They see medical professionals when their coughs have turned into pneumonia and hopefully when it is time for their routine vaccinations.

So you see, those conversations between a parent and a pediatrician that Rep. Bonnen would have you believe are so available are the reality of a privileged few in our state. We had the chance to level the field a little bit, and we decided to not take it. That will be something we as a legislative body will have to answer to in the future.

In about a decade we will have to look into the faces of the girls, by then young women, that would have been subject to the school-based HPV vaccine requirement in our state. By then, I regret to say, some will have developed pre-cancerous cervical cells that require invasive and expensive medical treatment in an effort to stave off cervical cancer. I also regret to say that at least some of them will have developed cervical cancer, as this disease can hit a woman when she is 20 or 40. I know this because I met such women, the ones fortunate enough to have survived, and I also met the loved ones of the women that were not quite so fortunate during the course of my research into this subject. I also know this because I am one of those very fortunate women that had access to medical care to treat pre-cancerous cells caused by HPV.

Those young women that were denied access to the vaccine will deserve an answer, and I invite every member of this House that voted against a school-based HPV vaccine requirement to start thinking of one because it will be on you to provide it to them.

I also invite the members that authored and supported amendments to our state budget that prohibit the use of state money for a school-based HPV vaccine requirement to think about this. Think of how you will explain to those young women why you saw it fit to spend money on everything under the sun minus their cancer-free futures.

And for those of you that in any way voted against making this life-saving vaccine available to all of the girls in our state, I invite you to also explain to these young women why you saw it fit to get your own daughters and granddaughters vaccinated against HPV through the physicians your private health insurance plan pays for. If they are worth protecting, why aren't all of the girls of Texas worthy of the same?

But this isn't just about the HPV vaccine. It's about the fact that our priorities in this legislature are focused on everything but what the residents of our state truly need. We've allowed fear and misguided ideology to determine our course, and that is reprehensible. The debate on the HPV vaccine has just been a sad commentary on the state of this legislative body.

From the beginning, the debate on HPV and the vaccine to prevent its infection in this House has been about everything but saving women's lives. It has been about misinformation on the merits of the vaccine, misinformation on the effect it would have on teen sexuality, and it has most certainly been on everything but the scientific and medical facts that tell us the vaccine prevents both suffering and death.

It has been about the Governor overreaching his authority. This is especially disturbing given the events of the past few days. HB 13, which gives the Governor massive amounts of power, was just passed with almost no hesitation or debate from the vast majority of this House. Yet those same members that voted for HB 13 condemned what they saw as an overreach of power by the Governor when he actually tried to prevent cancer in women. If that's not hypocrisy on the part of the members of this House, I don't know what is.

The debate has also been about the false belief that vaccine requirements intrude on parental rights. Requiring the HPV vaccine for school admission would not force anyone to get the vaccine. What it would do is require parents to make an informed decision whether or not to vaccinate their daughters against HPV. It would also provide access to the vaccine to the huge portions of our population that would otherwise never know about it or be offered it.

And finally, the debate has been about judgment. Judgment of the poor and uninformed-apparently they don't deserve to have access to this vaccine. Judgment of the women that contract HPV-apparently having sex, even if it's with your only lifetime sexual partner, is enough for you to deserve the virus and its potential consequences.

But, again, this isn't just about the HPV vaccine. It's about the fact that our priorities in this legislature are focused on everything but healthcare, education, children, families, counseling, violence prevention programs, consumer protection, protecting the environment, and generally helping those that most need help. It's about the fact that I believe we have lost our way, and refusing to help save women's lives is a particularly glaring example of this.

So today when HB 1098 becomes law and effectively denies a life-saving cancer vaccine to so many of our Texas girls, I ask you to think about what we have done. I ask that you think of the girls, boys, women, and men our decisions and actions affect on a daily basis. And I ask you to put yourself in their shoes the next time you have to decide how to vote on something as important as a cancer vaccine.

Thank you.

Targeting 2008: CD10

BOR lists "Five Things You Can Do To Help Win TX-10". We know there's two announced candidates on the Democratic side, and we know that incumbent Michael McCaul won with a modest 55% in 2006. What else do we know about this district and the chances of winning it in 2008?

Well, ask me a question like that and I'll give you a spreadsheet. Here's how the statewide candidates did in CD10 last year:

Republican    Votes    Pct    Democrat     Votes    Pct

=======================================================

Combs       107,403   63.1        Head    62,564   36.8

Abbott      107,990   62.9      Van Os    63,605   37.1

Hutchison   107,988   62.5   Radnofsky    64,818   37.5

Dewhurst    104,155   61.7    Alvarado    64,540   38.3

Patterson    97,762   58.9     Hathcox    68,328   41.1

Staples      97,273   58.1     Gilbert    70,124   41.9

McCaul       97,712   57.8      Ankrum    71,415   42.2

Ames Jones   95,750   57.7       Henry    70,112   42.3

Keller       98,243   57.3      Molina    73,136   42.7

Willett      89,899   54.4       Moody    75,343   45.6

Remember that all percentages are for the two-party totals, and that every race except Keller/Molina had a Libertarian in it; Mike Badnarik scored about 4% in CD10. Basically, McCaul compares poorly to the other Republicans on the ballot. An incumbent with his financial resources should have done better than he did.

I believe the key to making CD10 a viable target in 2008 is Travis County. You may recall that Ted Ankrum commissioned a poll in CD10 back in July, which showed the race splitting 50/42, with Libertarian Michael Badnarik getting the remaining 8. The poll skewed towards Travis - 47% of the respondents were from Travis County, 36% from Harris, and the remainder elsewhere. I noted that this was a critical factor, because Travis was going to be the main source of Democratic support. I also noted that this was a significant departure from 2004, where Harris slightly outpolled Travis. Here's how everybody performed in the CD10 portion of Travis County last year:

Republican    Votes    Pct    Democrat     Votes    Pct

=======================================================

Combs        34,418   49.1        Head    35,667   50.9

Abbott       33,790   47.5      Van Os    37,321   52.5

Hutchison    33,359   46.3   Radnofsky    38,654   53.7

Dewhurst     32,597   46.3    Alvarado    37,798   53.7

Patterson    29,295   42.6     Hathcox    39,512   57.4

Staples      28,972   41.9     Gilbert    40,256   58.1

Ames Jones   28,539   41.9       Henry    39,638   58.1

McCaul       28,576   40.9      Ankrum    41,351   59.1

Keller       28,962   40.4      Molina    42,769   59.6

Willett      25,479   37.3       Moody    42,845   62.7




Puryear      30,765   42.5       Brees    41,550   57.5

Waldrop      28,578   39.8    Coronado    43,191   60.2

Wilson       28,564   39.6      Henson    43,647   60.4

Connor       27,069   38.1       Baird    44,070   61.9

The bottom four candidates are all judicials. Ankrum did well here, but again there's room to grow. (There's also room to drop if you're not as good a candidate as some others, which I think explains the disparity between Mina Brees and her judicial colleagues.) More importantly, Travis County took in more votes than Harris did - where Harris was about 40% of the vote in 2004 and Travis 39%, it was 41% Travis and 37% Harris in 2006. A strong turnout operation could boost performance and total vote even more, which brings you that much closer to a win.

You can't do it all in Travis, of course. The Democrat will have to move the baseline up in Harris County, where the average statewide contender got 23% - Ankrum for 27%, Moody 29%. Topping 30% - ideally, getting 32 or 33 percent - has to be the goal. Which is easier said than done, given the utter lack of Democratic infrastructure in that part of the district. But if you believe CD10 is winnable - and I for one do - then this work needs to get done. Having the necessary financial resources would help a lot. Hopefully, the DCCC and the in-state money people are paying attention. We'll see.

Feds keep circling around Tom DeLay

Poor Tom DeLay. He's just a little ol' citizen-journalist now, but those nasty ol' Feds won't leave him alone.

DeLay said he has given the FBI documents exonerating his wife, but an associate of the former lawmaker said that agents have followed up with a fresh round of subpoenas.

The inquiry appears to be focused on determining whether DeLay's wife, Christine, earned her pay from two organizations controlled by Ed Buckham, a lobbyist once closely affiliated with the former Republican leader, according to sources interviewed by federal investigators. Several former employees of the groups have received subpoenas for documents, some in the past few weeks.

DeLay told The Hill that he gave the FBI documents and computer records proving his wife was a legitimate employee of ARMPAC, a fundraising committee, and Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying firm once controlled by Buckham.

The Justice Department's persistence shows it has run amok, DeLay says, echoing a charge leveled last week by Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) in response to reports that he is under federal investigation.

"They're not going after me," DeLay said of the FBI. "They're going after other people and they're questioning the other people about whether they know anything I may have done. And we've given them all the records and that's the problem they're having."

DeLay said the evidence shows that his wife did not accept improper payments: "She did her work and she was underpaid for the work she did and they can't make the case. It's a Justice Department that is running amok. Fish or cut bait. Do something."

Fine by me. You heard the man - do something!

DeLay said neither he nor his wife is the target of the investigation. But sources contacted by the FBI or familiar with the probe say Christine seems very much in the agency's sights. The FBI has asked former ARMPAC and Alexander Strategy Group employees what work Christine DeLay did.

"They were really focused on Christine DeLay and whether she was doing anything that would warrant her salary," said one person contacted by agents.

The Washington Post reported that Buckham's lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group, paid Christine DeLay a monthly salary of about $3,300 between 1998 and 2002.

ARMPAC, DeLay's leadership political action committee (PAC), which was also tied to Buckham, paid her and her daughter, Dani DeLay Ferro, about $350,000 in consulting fees and expenses between 2001 and 2006, according to the Post.

Buckham employed ARMPAC's executive director, Jim Ellis, as a consultant at Alexander, and staff of the two organizations shared an office building in Georgetown. Former DeLay associates described Buckham as a leader at ARMPAC.

The FBI has subpoenaed Ferro and investigators have questioned former DeLay associates about her work for ARMPAC. But the focus is mostly on Christine, sources say. Ferro refused to comment.

One source familiar with the investigation said federal officials have given immunity to at least one senior member of DeLay's political circle who may now be cooperating with investigators. Former associates of the majority leader say investigators are apparently attempting to indict DeLay for corruption by proving that Buckham sought to influence him with unearned payments to his wife.

Greg in TX22 has more on this, including some solid speculation about who that "senior member of DeLay's inner political circle may be. As always, stay tuned, and keep your popcorn bins amply supplied.

Metro gets some corridors started

And the next phase of the Metro light rail/guided rapid transit system is underway.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority board approved a $77.3 million agreement Tuesday with an Idaho-based engineering and construction firm to begin work on the city's next four rapid transit lines.

Under the contract, Washington Group Transit Management Co. will organize, schedule and perform early design and construction work on the North, Southeast, East End and Uptown corridors.

All four lines are expected to start out with Bus Rapid Transit, which uses trainlike buses in guideways, and be converted to light rail when ridership justifies the additional cost.

The project also includes a transfer hub, known as the Intermodal Terminal Facility, on North Main near the University of Houston-Downtown, where bus and light rail lines will meet.

The board also approved awarding the firm $2.5 million for precontract work.

Greg P.Therrien, president of infrastructure for the parent company, Washington Group International, said the design work would likely be completed by March.

The Metro board will take action on a separate design and construction contract in a later phase of the project, which could also include a contract to operate and maintain the completed line.

The Universities corridor will be done separately. I'm not sure what the time frame is on that. I'm also not sure what the status of the "lawsuit" is - I haven't heard anything, and haven't had the time to try to call someone at Metro and find out. Regardless, at least this piece is moving along.

More talk of a special session

I don't know about you, but about the last thing I want for this summer is a special session, on any subject. That specter has already been floated, with transportation issues (read: HB1892) the crux. There's a lot more talk of this today, and I'll just refer you to some of it:

Patricia Kilday Hart says all signs are pointing to some serious behind-the-scenes negotiations in the Senate.

Ben Wear reports that "the governor's chief of staff informed the staff at a Monday morning meeting that if they were planning vacations for the summer it would be advisable to buy travel insurance". Sen. John Carona, however, doesn't think it will come to that.

Christy Hoppe points out that while the Governor can make 'em come to Austin, he can't make 'em pass a bill that he likes. Or, in this case, un-pass a bill he doesn't like.

Eye on Williamson has some more links, plus thoughts on why compromise seems unlikely.

Finally, on a tangential note, McBlogger rips up a couple of pro-toll editorials.

I'll say again, I'd rather see the veto of HB1892 stand than suffer through another endless legislative summer. There's enough exceptions for existing projects in HB1892, plus all that expanded power for HCTRA, that on balance it'd be no great loss. I don't know what Rick Perry thinks his legacy is going to be, but from where I sit, it's his insistence on calling the Lege back to Austin for one damn thing or another. Almost anything to avoid that would be worthwhile.

House approves TYC reform bill

Nice to see that at least some decent bills have made it through despite the neverending sideshows and distractions this session.

The Texas House unanimously passed an omnibus bill Tuesday that would radically reform the troubled Texas Youth Commission.

The bill, by Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Richardson, likely heads to a conference committee where lawmakers can iron out differences between the House version and one passed by the Senate last month.

[...]

Both bills call for enhanced training for guards, the creation of an independent inspector general's office and an ombudsman's office, and no more than 12 offenders per guard. It also reduces the overall juvenile population by not accepting misdemeanor offenders and offenders older than 18. Also, offenders younger than 14 would be housed separately from 18-year-olds.

The major difference between the two proposals centers on management.

The Senate bill calls for a single individual, an executive commissioner, to run TYC, with the help of an advisory commission. The House bill calls for the reinstatement of a board of directors, which would have oversight over an executive director.

That was the structure in place earlier this year, when news reports carried allegations that two administrators at the West Texas State School sexually abused youths in their care and that alerts to administrators at the school and in Austin were ignored or covered up.

Grits has more, including some well-deserved kudos for Rep. Jerry Madden and Isela Gutierrez of the Texas Coalition Advocating Justice for Juveniles, who was one of the first whistleblowers on the whole TYC scandal. I truly hope that we've finally done right by these kids.

Stop HB159

Geez, this late in the session you'd think every bad bill that could come up would have already come up, but if the 80th Lege has taught us anything, it's that nothing is what you'd expect it to be. And so, here comes HB159, which is as bad as they come. Grits explains.

[This bill] would disallow immigrant kids who spent at least three years and graduated from Texas high schools from receiving in-state tuition - on Wednesday's Major State calendar. That means it must be debated before everyone else's bills on the list.

One imagines Speaker Tom Craddick's elevation of this bill to such lofty status may have been less a statement of policy - after all, Craddick actually voted for HB 1403 in 2001 and it was signed by Gov. Rick Perry - but instead a shrewd counterattack on Rep. Rick Noriega, who carried HB 1403 in the 77th Legislature. He just got back from National Guard duty on the Texas-Mexico border in time for session, but along with Rep. Farrar and several others he helped lead the recent uprising to rein in the Governor's homeland security legislation. That affrontery, apparently, earns the Lieutenant Colonel a parliamentary back hand.

In another sense, though, the move spites House members generally, who as Harvey Kronberg recently pointed out have seized power in recent weeks from the Speaker in nearly unprecedented ways. Many members oppose HB 159, it will take a lot of time to debate, and every minute they talk about it more bills die.

It's also a slap at Governor Perry, for what it's worth. I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish, especially if it's not popular among the members or the Governor, except to throw a bone to a raving lunatic. Be that as it may, this morning would be a good time to call your Rep and ask him or her to oppose HB159.

More on the anti-Craddick revolt

Burka has a long take on what happened in the Lege Monday night.

Our editor, Evan Smith, asked me this morning who was to blame for what has gone on this session. I waffled, but I think that there can be only one answer. The speaker has it in his power to set the tone. He can be magnanimous, or he can be confrontational. He has chosen the latter from day one of his speakership. The opposition Democrats cannot pass any significant bills on the regular calendar. They can't serve on major committees unless their seniority allows it, which occurs in only a few cases. Calendar rules and the dividing of property tax cut legislation made it impossible for them to present their alternatives in debate. Whatever happened to the saying, Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? The Democrats have no stake in the session. They have nothing to do except figure out ways to torture Craddick on the floor, day in and day out. Idle minds are the devil's workshop. Do you think that Pete Gallego would be trying to bust Craddick every day if he were vice-chair of Appropriations? Do you think that Jim Dunnam would be scheming against Craddick with every breath he takes if he were vice-chair of Civil Practices? Do you think that Craig Eiland would be lending his rhetorical and analytical skills to the anti-Craddick effort if he were carrying the teacher retirement bill?

Emphasis Burka's. That feels right to me. We've seen the bogus rulings on points of order, the priority given to some bills and not to others, and on and on. For all the talk of a new Craddick that came up during the Speaker's race, it's clear that the actions have spoken louder. There's only one way this will change - the Observer thinks it might be happening, Burka is less sure. I want to believe the former, but unfortunately I think Burka is more likely to be right. Show me a candidate, and get back to me after the 2008 election.

Death to fire ants!

Some good news in the battle against one of our more obnoxious invasive species.

Imported red fire ants have plagued farmers, ranchers and others for decades. Now the reviled pests are facing a bug of their own.

Researchers have pinpointed a naturally occurring virus that kills the ants, which arrived in the U.S. in the 1930s and now cause $6 billion in damage annually nationwide, including about $1.2 billion in Texas.

The virus caught the attention of U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers in Florida in 2002. The agency is now seeking commercial partners to develop the virus into a pesticide to control fire ants.

The virus was found in about 20 percent of fire ant fields, where it appears to cause the slow death of infected colonies.

"Certainly, we are excited about it," said Bob Vander Meer, the leader of the USDA research team in Gainesville, Fla. "I think the virus has great potential. No question about it."

[...]

In the laboratory, the virus, SINV-1, has proven to be self-sustaining and transmissible. Once introduced, it can eliminate a colony within three months.

That's why researchers believe the virus has potential as a viable biopesticide to control fire ants, known to scientists as Solenopsis invicta.

Although it occurs naturally in fire ants, the virus needs a stressor before it becomes deadly and begins replicating within a colony, Valles said.

Integrating the virus into ant baits could offer a tool to the pest-control industry, agricultural producers and harvesters, consumers and others for whom fire ants are a persistent problem.

The virus isn't alone in the fight against the fire ant. In South America, they have dozens of natural enemies. But researchers don't know whether those predators could be introduced here.

Among them is the small phorid fly, which seeks out fire ants and lays its eggs on them. The eggs hatch into tiny maggots that bore into the heads of their host and feed on its brains.

"The problem is we really don't know how effective these phorid flies are going to be in North America," Merchant said.

Obviously, any time you mess with Mother Nature, the potential for nasty unforeseen consequences is worrisome. This sounds like a reasonable approach, but you never know. Nonetheless, and I'm sure anyone who's ever suffered a bite (or ten) from these little nasties would agree, I'm hoping this works out. Just about anything that beats them back is good by definition.

The end of "Lost" is coming, but not quite yet

The end of Lost is coming, and it will be good.

Lost will continue for three more shortened seasons, then go out with an inevitable "shocking" finale at the end of the 2009-2010 season, ABC said Monday.

The announcement means producers Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof have gotten what they wanted, receiving an end date they requested as well as signing a rich new deal.

The agreement is also good for ABC, which gets three more seasons of the still-popular series. The network receives 48 more episodes that ABC will roll out in 16-episode seasons, with all seasons airing uninterrupted (like Fox's 24).

"In considering the powerful storytelling of Lost, we felt this was the only way to give it a proper creative conclusion," said Stephen McPherson, president of ABC Entertainment. "Due to the unique nature of the series, we knew it would require an end date to keep the integrity and strength of the show consistent throughout, and to give the audience the payoff they deserve."

[...]

The deal appears to be good for all concerned, including viewers.

"I think for story-based shows like Lost, as opposed to franchise-based shows like ER or CSI, the audience wants to know when the story is going to be over," Cuse told Variety. "When J.K. Rowling announced that there would be seven Harry Potter books, it gave the readers a clear sense of exactly what their investment would be. We want our audience to do the same."

I think Lost has been as good as it's ever been lately, and I think (I hope!) this will settle the question of whether or not the producers know what they're doing and where they're going, or if they're just making it up as they go along with no plan. Much as I know I'll miss it when it's gone, I can't wait to see how Lost ends.

Bilingual children's TV

Interesting article about bilingual children's shows, which are being shown primarily on Nickelodeon and the Disney Channel.

Nickelodeon has been leading the way in this burgeoning genre, El Tigre being its most recent entry.

"This is about a commitment to diversity," said Tom Ascheim, the network's executive vice president and general manager. "We're a clubhouse where every kid is a member just by being a kid. If you believe that in your heart, you need to be sure kids can find themselves on the screen."

The network's No. 1 show for preschoolers, Dora the Explorer, reaches as many as 2.8 viewers 2 years of age and older and of Hispanic origin each month, including 853,000 preschoolers.

Dora and other shows that take a bilingual tack to attract Hispanic youngsters also populate their shows with Hispanic characters and themes.

Olivia's current TV obsession is Dora's cousin Diego - she'd watch every episode on the TiVo, twice, each day if we'd let her. As a result, she knows her pygmy marmosets and three-toed sloths, and I've caught her singing a word or two in Spanish since she developed this habit. If I could only get the damn theme song out of my head, it'd be great. Ah, well, you can't have everything.

The cost of the anti-SOB battle

Here's the thing about the unusually high cost of defending the anti-SOB law that the city passed in 1997, which it can finally enforce today. If I thought the law were good public policy, I'd be less likely to complain about the cost, even if in real terms it's a very small piece of the city's budget. It's not that I don't think there's an issue with some sexually oriented businesses, in particular some of the "newsstands" and massage parlors (though some recent arrests of their owners seems to have put a sizable dent in that part of the market), it's that I think this ordinance goes way too far. Why, exactly, is it good public policy to put Treasures or the Men's Club out of business? Surely we're not claiming they've been a drag on property values around the Galleria. I feel like there must be, and must have been, a reasonable middle ground that would have given the city more power to deal with the truly bad actors while not being a sledgehammer that crushed everything in its wake. (To be fair, the strip clubs probably didn't do themselves any favors at the time this ordinance was being debated, if this guy is to be believed.)

Given that this lawsuit has already cost a boatlod of money, given that there's a lot more legal wrangling to come, and given that there's got to be an approach that will let the city do some real cleanup without throwing thousands of people out of work, I'd really love to see a settlement to put an end to all this. I'm not going to hold my breath, though.

One more thing:

Kelly DeHay, a Houston real estate agent who volunteers his time fighting graffiti in the Neartown area, said the city is reacting to the wishes of its residents.

"The city never would have spent that kind of money if they hadn't had complaints," DeHay said.

I would never call the newly-implemented comment feature on Chron stories representative of real public opinion, but for what it's worth, nobody is defending the city's expenditures in there. It'd be interesting to do a poll of people's attitudes on this. Is upwards of a million bucks a good use of public money here? I really don't know how that would turn out, but I'd love to see it.

Overruled!

How many times have we heard some variation on the phrase "The first time in recent memory that this has happened" in connection with the 80th Legislative session? Good thing or bad, it's sure kept the entertainment factor high. Another such incident occurred late last night, when a point or order ruling by Speaker Craddick was overruled by a vote of the membership. As usual, Robert Talton was in the thick of things. See coverage in the Statesman blog here and here, in the El Paso Times blog here and here, the Chron blog here, and multiple posts by the DMN's Karen Brooks - start here and work your way back.

Last chance to vote early today

Stace voted. Have you?

Today is the last day of early voting. You can vote on Election Day, which is this Saturday the 12th, but what with it being Art Car Parade Day and all, wouldn't you rather have the day clear to celebrate that? Sure you would. So go vote today. Polling places are open from 7 AM till 7 PM.

Farrar on HB13's passage

One more press release from Rep. Jessica Farrar on last night's House vote to pass HB13:

On Monday, May 7, HB 13 by Chairman Swinford (R-Dumas) was voted out of the Texas House of Representatives. Before taking a vote on HB 13, Rep. Farrar (D-Houston) asked her fellow members to vote against the bill. HB 13 places the State Office of Homeland Security under the Office of the Governor and therefore allows a political office to allocate funds and oversee programs for border and homeland security programs. Rep. Farrar voted against HB 13.

An amendment by Rep. Farrar to allow DPS to allocate border and homeland security funds based on need was tabled, as was an amendment by Rep. Herrero (D-Robstown) that would have moved all homeland security activities under DPS. Rep. Merritt (R-Longview) also offered several amendments aimed at increasing the accountability for those both allocating and receiving funds for border and homeland security. All of Rep. Merritt's amendments were also tabled. In response to this, Rep. Farrar stated that, "Instead of basing law enforcement decisions on law enforcement criteria, we are continuing and officially setting up a political patronage system. We risk continuing the dismal results obtained thus far by the border security programs administered by the Office of the Governor. In doing so, we have also managed to increase the Governor's power at a time when most Texas residents are questioning such a move."

Rep. Farrar has been a vocal critic of the language in HB 13 since it was introduced in the House Committee on State Affairs, of which she is a member. Chief among her concerns has been that the bill tasks the State Office of Homeland Security with law enforcement duties. "Today we denied our premier state-level law enforcement authority, DPS, the ability to fully do its job," said Rep. Farrar in response to the failure on the part of the House to allow DPS to allocate and oversee border and homeland security programs.

While Chairman Swinford has repeatedly stated that any federal border and homeland security funds have to be allocated by the Office of the Governor, Rep. Farrar has stated that this is not the case. "The information provided to me by members of our Texas congressional delegation as well as the Federal Office of Homeland Security made it clear that there is no reason why DPS cannot allocate border and homeland security funds. We would not risk losing any federal money by doing this, and I think it is regretful that supporters of HB 13 felt it necessary to mislead their fellow members and the public as a whole on this aspect of the debate in an effort to gain support for the bill," said Rep. Farrar. In addition, the $100 million in state funds for border and homeland security funding that Chairman Swinford has referred to is not dependant on the passage of HB 13. "That $100 million is allocated in HB 1. Whether HB 13 had been successful or not, that money has already been set aside for the purpose of border and homeland security," stated Rep. Farrar.

"I fear that we will not effectively protect the border or the state as a whole if we allow a political office to be in charge of law enforcement activities. In fact, I believe that we risk making ourselves more vulnerable if we continue to create a false sense of security by relying on a system and programs that have failed to produce sustainable results. Unfortunately, I believe HB 13 does just that," stated Rep. Farrar.

HB 13 will now be considered by the Texas Senate.

Not much else to say other than "I agree". Seems to me every time the Lege has passed a bill under inaccurate premises, it has come to regret it - see the Trans Texas Corridor and HB2292 for recent examples. The Observer has more, including a link to this El Paso Times story that tells you a lot about how things have already been with border funds under Governor Perry's control.

HB1224 update

Pete gives an update to the status of HB1224 and its Senate counterpart, SB419. This is the bill that would greatly help autistic children and their parents, if only it were to be passed without a pernicious amendment inserted by Rep. Larry Taylor (R, Friendswood). I know that this blog is read by a fair number of State Reps and their staffs, so while I have your attention let me implore you to please go and read Pete's two posts (the first one is here), and do what you can to make HB1224 right. Thank you.

2035 Regional Transportation Plan

Speaking of Tory, he's got a nice summary of the 2035 H-GAC Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). What caught my eye was this new stuff that Metro is considering:

* Guided Rapid Transit (GRT, probably BRT) along 3 new lines:

1. Along Bellaire (their busiest bus route) from Highway 6 all the way to what looks like the east end of the eastside BRT in the Ship Channel area
2. Along what looks like the 288 median from Brazoria into downtown. Not sure how that jives with the toll road plan down the middle (which is also on the map). The plans I saw way back said any rail that direction would be in the Almeda corridor, but that's not what this map shows.
3. West along I10 from downtown to Katy. Again, not sure about where the RoW is coming from here. They also still show the managed lanes along this corridor, so it's not coming out of them.

All of these make sense. Bellaire is very dense, and I think would be well served by a rail line. SH-288 is interesting. I don't know what it's like south of 610, but there's a lot of apartment/condo construction going on right next to the South Freeway inside the Loop. I'm not sure how it would fit in with the toll road plan, either, but if you can make it work, it would connect a fairly underserved part of town to downtown, as well as being a sort of back route to the Medical Center, Museum District, and Reliant Stadium. I'd love to see the specifics on that one.

Of most interest to me is the I-10 proposal, which would finally bring a rail line near my house. If such a line existed today, I'd have the option of not driving to work. It would take longer than driving, but not as much as you might think. I can't predict what my schedule and transportation needs might be by the time this thing gets built, assuming it does, but I'd sure love to have the choice. I'll be rooting for it to happen.

No commuter rail from Intermodal Terminal?

Looks like the new Metro intermodal center won't have a commuter rail component at this time.

A Union Pacific Railroad official says the Metropolitan Transit Authority's plans to run commuter trains between the suburbs and a large intermodal terminal planned for the Near Northside probably won't work.

"We feel it is not feasible to operate commuter rail at this location," Joe Adams told the regional Transportation Policy Council last week. "We have made this clear in discussions with Metro."

Adams, who represents UP board chairman Jim Young in the Houston area, spoke after Metro executive vice president John Sedlak had completed a presentation about the project, which also would receive light-rail trains and buses.

[...]

East-west tracks, which pass through the proposed terminal site between Burnett and Naylor, and the north-south tracks, which run east of the site on Hardy and Elysian, each carry 25-30 trains a day, Adams said.

There also are a number of industries and warehouses in the vicinity and its approaches, he said.

UP spokesman Joe Arbona said higher fuel prices and congested roads have brought a boom to the freight rail industry, so the railroad may need unused space on its current right of way for future track.

Adams said UP has no problem with Metro running light rail on Main at the terminal, and said at least one proposed commuter route may be doable.

"We would be happy to work with Metro" on a future line in the Hempstead Highway/U.S. 290 corridor, Adams said. "It doesn't present the degree of challenges that operating around the Hardy Yards presents."

However, Adams said bringing such a line past the West Loop and into downtown would conflict with freight operations. As an alternative, he said, Metro could switch commuters onto its light rail system at the Northwest Transit Center, off the West Loop near U.S. 290, and take a less direct route to downtown.

I've more or less come around to the Tory Gattis viewpoint that HOV lane/commuter bus combination that we have now is a sufficient and cost-efficient substitute for commuter rail. Maybe there's still a case for a line along 290, if it can be implemented cheaply, but if the idea is to transfer people to light rail lines from there, then I'd hope someone is paying attention to Christof's suggestions on how to minimize such transfers.

"Gutted" statewide smoking ban bill passes the House

For what it's worth.

The smoking ban seemed to have recovered from a near-defeat Friday but staggered further Monday before it passed 91-48.

Now in its weakened state, the bill still needs a final House vote before it goes to the Senate, where it faces an uphill battle to survive.

Myra Crownover, the Lake Dallas Republican pushing the measure, said the ban is needed to protect workers and other people regularly exposed to secondhand smoke.

"Our attempt is to save lives. Secondhand smoke kills," Crownover said, vowing to try to get the bill back to its original, stronger form. "Nothing is ever finished until it signed by the governor."

The biggest fight came over an attempt to exempt bars, which Crownover argued would have defeated the purpose of the bill. The bar exemption had been placed in the bill Friday, but was removed after negotiations over the weekend.

But Crownover later accepted an amendment that allows property owners -- not always the bar or restaurant operator -- to decide if smoking will be allowed. The owner would have to post a sign in a conspicuous place noting that smoking is permitted.

Crownover acknowledged that the exemption punches a huge hole in the ban.

"I will work very hard," to take it out, she said.

The bill includes other exemptions for bingo and VFW halls and bars that offer their employees health insurance. Cities could also opt out if local voters can get the issue on the May 2008 ballot.

The Senate companion bill is still in committee, so this may have all been for naught anyway. For good or ill, the time spent on this bill may mean others won't get heard at all. Too bad most of the bad ones have already had their day on the floor, but that's how it goes. Capitol Letters and Postcards from the Lege have more.

HB13 passes the House

Grits and Vince have the details. I predict it'll have a much easier time in the Senate - it'll need to have a much easier time, or there'll be no time to pass it. Even a joint committee might run up against the clock. Not that this would be a bad thing, mind you.

UPDATE: Early coverage of the House action.

"Today, we denied the state level law enforcement, the DPS, its ability to do the fullest job that it possibly could on the border," said Democratic Rep. Jessica Farrar of Houston, who voted against the bill. "We are ... setting up a political patronage system instead of basing law enforcement decisions on law enforcement criteria. We risk continuing the dismal results obtained thus far."

Amen. At least the Raymond and Noriega amendments made it in. Take your small victories where you can, I always say.

Anti-clean air bill gets moved to friendlier turf

Remember SB1317, the anti-clean air bill that could have been stopped in the Senate but wasn't? And remember how I was worried that it might get routed to a friendly committee for a clear path to passage in the House? Over the weekend, I reported that it was instead routed to the Urban Affairs Committee, where an identical bill had been locked up. Unfortunately, it's not there any more.

Upon passage, Jackson's bill was referred to Urban Affairs, which is chaired by Houston Democrat Kevin Bailey. A few hours later the bill was re-referred to the Environmental Regulation Committee, which Angleton Republican Dennis Bonnen chairs. Bonnen has not heard any of the air toxics bills filed by Democrats this session. Let's see if he puts Jackson's bill on the fast track.

The makeup of the committees suggest the bill has a better chance coming out of Environmental Regulation, which has five Republicans and two Democrats. Urban Affairs, in contrast, has five Democrats and two Republicans.

Suggests, hell. It screams it from the rooftops.

Look, it's very simple. Remember what Sen. Jackson said during the floor debate?

"This isn't over air quality. It's over city sovereignty," said Sen. Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, who carried the bill. "This is a policy issue, not an environmental bill."

You would think that a city sovereignity bill would properly belong in Urban Affairs, wouldn't you? Especially since an identical bill is already in Urban Affairs. But you'd be wrong. Despite not being an environmental bill, it's in the Environmental Regulation Committee, where it's sure to get passed. How awfully damn convenient.

At this time, I'd say the best thing that could happen is a point of order. There's got to be something in there if someone can find it. It'd be nice to know what role Kevin Bailey might have played in this bill's removal from his committee. Remember how being a Craddick Democrat means you get to have power to do good? This is one of those times when that power was needed, and unless someone can explain to me otherwise, I'd say Bailey flunked the test. When this bill passes, you can add him to the list that starts with Mike Jackson and Eddie Lucio of people to thank for it.

More HB13 debunking

HB13 is scheduled to be on the floor of the House yet again today, at which time we may get some answers to the questions Scott Henson raised concerning federal funding questions that its sponsor, Rep. David Swinford, had claimed about it. Scott has some more questions today:

HB 13's sponsor David Swinford claimed having the Governor oversee these funds was required by federal statute, but as I reported over the weekend, that's not true. It turns out grant money would be given directly to counties from the US Attorney General and would not pass through the Governor at all!

Indeed, Rep. Rick Noriega's office compiled an analysis of where these functions have been placed in all 50 states that staff will distribute to House members. Bottom line, here's an overview of where various states have placed homeland security powers:

Governor: 12
Department of Public Safety: 15
Adjutant General: 5
Independent Agency: 11
Other: 6

So other states don't have HB 13's structure, and there is no federal statute or even pending legislation in Congress that would require such funds to pass through the Governor's office. Given Chairman Swinford's misreading of federal law and his misunderstanding with Congressman Culberson (who did not draft his federal legislation to mirror Swinford's bill), I hope he backs off these unnecessary and increasingly inexplicable demands.

Remember how the hullabaloo over Governor Perry's HPV order was really about Perry's overreaching his authority, and the House snapping him back into place? Well, I say this is another example of such overreach. Will the House act as they did with HB1098, or do the Governor's wild-eyed claims about terrorists cancel out such concerns? We shall see. The Observer has more.

If not you, then who?

Through Friday, just under 24,000 people had voted in Harris County (PDF). That includes other city elections, like Pasadena and Deer Park, various school board elections, and the constitutional amendment. It does not include the weekend, which might have added another 5000 ballots or so. Counting today and tomorrow, I'd guess we'll wind up with about 35,000 early votes being cast, which suggests about 80,000 total votes. If that were city of Houston only, it would mean that the County Clerk estimate of eight percent turnout was accurate. Since it isn't just city of Houston, I'll stand by my projection of five percent.

Which makes your vote worth that of twenty people. Assuming you cast it, of course. If you don't, well, what other nineteen people will you be lumped in with?

Early voting concludes tomorrow. You have from 7 AM till 7 PM today and tomorrow to vote early, at one of these locations. After that, Election Day is May 12. Please don't miss out.

HB13: Swinford and Culberson

Grits asks a very interesting question regarding HB13:

House State Affairs Chairman David Swinford has said he'd rather kill HB 13, the Governor's homeland security bill, than move police powers to the Department of Public Safety away from the Governor's control. In both the committee hearings and on the floor the other day Swinford referenced a deal he made with Congressman John Culberson that he intended to honor. According to the El Paso Times:

Swinford said moving control of border security money out of Perry's office could jeopardize a deal he has made with Texas congressmen to get border sheriffs more federal money. "I will kill the bill before I go back on my word," he said.

That struck me as odd, and the chair has said it more than once - he'd rather kill his own bill than move this out of Gov. Perry's control!

What sort of deal could this be, I wondered? Why would John Culberson have so much say so over whether Texas gets money or not or whether a state agency is under the Governor or under an independent board?

Click on to read more. I'd like to know the answer to that, too.

Meanwhile, we finally have a response from Gov. Perry to the swiftboating of Rep. Rick Noriega.

At issue was a letter sent April 27 from state Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw to Noriega that accused the Houston Democrat of taking a "bury our heads in the sand" approach to border security.

[...]

Noriega, a lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard who missed the 2005 legislative session while he was deployed to Afghanistan, called the letter "both insulting and irresponsible" and called on Perry to retract it.

"We're talking about the safety of Texas," Noriega told the Star-Telegram on Wednesday. "To then attempt a diversionary tactic by killing the messenger is not appropriate for something this serious."

Perry replied in a letter of his own thanking Noriega for his Guard service, and offered to address his concerns in depth at a later date. Perry spokesman Robert Black said Noriega might not have a complete grasp of the responsibilities of the homeland security office.

"It's important for Representative Noriega to have a full understanding of what the Governor's Office of Homeland Security entails," Black said. "It's not just about border security, but emergency management in the event of a disaster, drug interdiction and coordinating efforts to keep our citizens safe."

Noriega called the comments condescending, and said that he was raising legitimate questions about policies implemented or planned by the homeland security office that did not intend to minimize the need for a secure southern border.

He reaffirmed his statements that state officials are exaggerating the threat of terrorists gaining access to U.S. territory from Mexico's border with Texas. The more vulnerable targets, he said, are the nation's small airports, seaports and power plants.

"They are using the terrorism threat as an excuse for immigrant bashing," Noriega said.

I think we all understand what the Governor's Homeland Security office is about, which is why there's been so much bluster and secrecy surrounding it. It wouldn't bother me at all if Rep. Swinford followed through on his threat to pull the bill. Go ahead, throw me in the briar patch!

Finally, Muse comments on the elephant in the room, and notes that Governor-For-a-Day Mario Gallegos made Noriega Director of Homeland Security for a day. If only!

Dynamo: Moving near the Astros?

Miya Shay reports that the Houston Dynamo may become the Houston Astros' newest neighbor.

Officially, the Dynamo say they are still looking at building a new stadium either in Sugar Land or Houston. But I've learned there's been a strong push by city and sports leaders in town to keep the team in Houston. And while the final decision is still weeks away, there's been lots of scouting for a potential location.

As the Houston Dynamo players try to defend their championship, the team's front office is trying to find the team a permanent home.

"We really want to find the site that makes the most sense for the franchise, for the sport of soccer, and what we think can give us the best opportunity to not only grow our business, but to really embrace the soccer community," said General Manager Oliver Luck.

Luck would not go into specifics, but multiple sources say the Dynamo is seriously considering a stretch of parking lot located just east of Minute Maid Park. Owned by the Houston Sports Authority, the large surface parking lot is under a 30-year lease by the Astros. But Pam Gardner says the team's willing to share.

"We've been really, really thrilled with the situation we have downtown," she said. "We would have to look at how we might look into some shared environments. Where they might put it might affect what else they have around them. Without knowing the specifics on their plan, it's hard to really address that."

Your move, Sugar Land.

How unromantic

'stina brings news of an incident at the Romantic Times Book Lovers' Convention here in Houston. I'll leave it to you to click over and read the details. All I know is that it looks like Fred Head finally found someone who'd vote for him.

Great moments in publishing

There really are days when I feel like I've seen it all.

Believe it or not, there actually does exist a magazine called Blogger & Podcaster. And yes, the tagline is: "For Aspiring New Media Titans." And yes, you won't even come close to being the first to mock the effort. Nevertheless, Troy McCullough of the Baltimore Sun says "the concept of a blogging trade publication isn't as crazy as some have made it out to be" and insists that the magazine "has shown it has some early potential."

I don't know about you, but my personal Sign Of The Apocalypse count is now well into three digits. Thanks to the ever-vigilant Julia for the link.

Roger Clemens signs with the Yankees

Holy mackeral!

At the end of the seventh-inning stretch, Yankees public address announcer Bob Sheppard told fans to turn their attention to the box, where Clemens was standing with a microphone. As the video scoreboard in right-center showed Clemens, the seven-time Cy Young Award winner made the announcement himself.

"Well, they came and got me out of Texas and I can tell you it's a privilege to be back," Clemens said. "I'll be talking to y'all soon."

Clemens, who will turn 45 in August, agreed to a $28 million, one-year contract that will start when he is added to the major league roster, most likely in three to four weeks.

He begins with a minor league contract, and the deal will allow him to earn about $18.5 million. Clemens will start his workouts in Lexington, Ky., where his son Koby is playing in the Houston Astros' farm system.

[...]

He chose New York over two of his other former teams, the Astros and Boston Red Sox.

"Let's face it -- these guys know how to win," Clemens said, adding that captain Derek Jeter pressed him to return as New York struggled early this season.

Cue the Great Houston Sports Talk/Sportswriter Meltdown of 2007 in 3...2...

Transportation roundup

Along with criminal justice issues, there's still a lot of unsettled business regarding transportation bills, in particular the toll road moratorium, where HB1892 is headed for a veto and a likely override. Burka thinks that if this does happen, we're in for another Endless Legislative Summer of special sessions until the stuff in HB1892 that Perry can't abide - which is apparently giving metropolitan toll road authorities like HCTRA "primacy" over TxDOT - is undone. I don't know if this is true, but given the opportunities for other forms of mischief during a special session - say, voter ID bills, where a two-thirds rule may not be in effect - I'd rather see the Lege back down and send Perry the stand-alone TTC moratorium bill instead. Talk about picking between bad choices. The Observer and Eye on Williamson have more on that.

Speaking of the veto/override showdown, the Quorum Report (via Sal) notes that a well-timed illness on Friday by Governor Perry's clerk has extended the time frame for Perry to make his decision, which in turn makes it that much harder for an override to occur. Ben Wear has more:

The distance from the governor's office to the Texas House chambers is about 100 feet. A key toll road bill has taken more than two days to make that trip -- so far -- and isn't there yet. The delay on HB 1892, which got final passage Wednesday afternoon in the House, means that if Gov. Rick Perry officially receives it Monday, he'll have until sometime May 18 to decide what to do.

That would still give the Legislature a full 10 days in the session to override what many assume will be a Perry veto of the legislation, which in a variety of ways wrenches away tools the Texas Department of Transportation has used to create toll roads.

Ten days, so no harm, no foul, right? Not necessarily. As one legislative staff member put it late this afternoon, 48 hours is a long time at the Legislature late in the session. And an ill-timed illness (or well timed, depending on one's perspective) by Greg Davidson, Perry's executive clerk, just bought the governor another two days.

Davidson, it turns out, is the only Perry staff member authorized to accept and time-stamp legislation passed and ready for gubernatorial action. According to the office of state Rep. Wayne Smith, R-Baytown, sponsor of HB 1892, the Legislative Council tried to reach Davidson Friday at 2:48 p.m. with a phone call. When the message wasn't returned, an e-mail was sent to Davidson at 3:30 p.m., followed by another phone call at 4:15 p.m., and then a personal visit at 4:40 p.m. That's when the council staff found out Davidson had gone home sick earlier in the afternoon.

Was Davidson really ill? "Yes, absolutely," said Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger. She couldn't say, or find out this evening, when Davidson went home, or if any other legislation was accepted today before he left.

Supposedly, Governor-for-a-Day Gallegos was going to try to rectify this and get the bill time-stamped yesterday. I've not seen any updates anywhere to indicate whether this was successful or not. As always, stay tuned.

Bill roundup

There's three weeks left in this session, and a whole mess of bills still working their way through the system. Some will make it, but many others will die. Grits takes a stab at sorting out the good and bad criminal justice bills and their odds of passage at this time.Check it out.

Have I mentioned voting?

Have you voted yet? Early voting ends on Tuesday. Don't miss out!

The fifty-dollar scratch-off game

There are things in this life whose appeal completely eludes me. Things like broccoli. Kenny Chesney. Fifty-dollar lottery tickets.

That's the price of the state's newest scratch-off game, dubbed $130 Million Spectacular, which goes on sale Monday and offers nearly $134 million in prizes, including three grand prizes of $5 million.

A $50 game is the highest price for a scratch-off in the nation, according to lottery data. Kansas introduced the first $50 ticket two years ago and Michigan also will launch one on Monday. Compare that to California, where the most expensive scratch-off ticket is $5. In New York, it's $20.

Officials in Texas evidently believe their new game will do well; they're printing 3.7 million of the $50 tickets and are planning to soon introduce a second $50 game.

[...]

The [Texas Lottery] offered its first $3 scratch-off in 1997. By 2000, it had a $10 game; a $20 game in 2002 and a $30 game in 2004. Last year, $1 scratch-off tickets accounted for just 11 percent of all scratch-off sales, while nearly a third came from tickets priced between $10 and $30.

The $50 game comes with a 63 percent chance of losing.

Those odds won't deter Mike Swain, 44, a driver for a moving company who picked up $4 worth of scratch-offs in East Austin this week.

"I'll try it. I definitely could try it once. Sometimes I have $50 extra," he said.

I can think of about a million things I'd rather blow an extra $50 on. I try, I really do, to see other perspectives on things I don't like or agree with. On this one, I'm coming up blank.

Gerald Busald, a math professor at San Antonio College who analyzes lottery practices, had this advice for those itching to wager 50 bucks on a single ticket: Don't.

"You can have the same dream for $1 that you can for $20 or $30 or $50," he said. "You're not going to win."

Yeah. If I were ever to get the urge to waste a little money on the Lottery, it'd be on Lotto Texas, when the jackpot were really big. And it'd only be a dollar, so I'd only feel a dollar's worth of foolishness when I lost.

One last thing:

William Scott, 64, a custodian in Austin who works two jobs and said he often spends $120 a day on lottery games, is eager to try his luck on the $50 game. "I play all of them."

I presume, or at least I hope like hell, that Mr. Scott doesn't spend $120 every day on the lottery. Because if he did, I'd imagine the $43,800 he was dropping on his habit is more than he earns at his second job. I'd guess that even factoring in wins on the lottery and taxes on the additional salary, he'd be losing out. But maybe that's just me.

Two for CD10

In my post about Dan Grant's entry into CD10 as a Democratic candidate, I mentioned that there was at least one other person that I knew of who was considering getting into that race. As BOR reports, that person is Larry Joe Doherty. He was at the same event where I met Dan Grant, but I did not have a chance to speak to him. At this point, I'll say I'd be happy with either gentleman, and that I'm very glad to see that other people view this district as being as winnable as I do. Now I really need to finish that analysis of CD10...

Anti-clean air bill referred to Urban Affairs

Remember SB1317, the anti-clean air bill that could have been stopped in the Senate but wasn't? And remember how I was worried that it might get routed to a friendly committee for a clear path to passage in the House? Well, as you can see from the first link in this post, it was in fact referred to the Urban Affairs Committee, which is not only the appropriate place for it, but one from which it will likely never emerge. Urban Affairs is chaired by Houston Democrat Kevin Bailey, and is made up of five Democrats and two Republicans; one of its members is Ellen Cohen, who as we know strongly opposes SB1317. So, barring anything strange (like sticking it into another bill as an amendment), that should be that. And good riddance if so.

Statewide smoking ban hits a snag

It was back in March when a statewide smoking ban bill was first heard in the House. Yesterday, it hit a snag after an amendment that would exempt all bars from consideration was adopted.

As it originally hit the House floor Friday, the bill by Rep. Myra Crownover would have banned smoking in workplaces, including restaurants and bars, with an exception for cigar bars.

But Rep. Harold Dutton painted the cigar-bar exemption as an elitist one, saying that people who go to regular bars should have the same rules as those who frequent fancy cigar bars.

"You don't find cigar bars in inner-city neighborhoods," said Dutton, D-Houston. "If we're going to allow it over there (in neighborhoods with cigar bars), it seems to me that it's only fair that we allow (it) on the other side of town."

Among those objecting to the amendment on economic grounds was Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, who's in the barbecue restaurant business. He said the ban should be equal among bars and restaurants.

"You're going to drive my customers out of my restaurant to a bar, the ones that want to smoke," Geren said.

An effort to kill Dutton's amendment exempting bars, and some other establishments such as bingo halls, failed on a vote of 65-73.

Crownover, R-Denton, then accepted Dutton's provision. Now, she is looking for a way to strip it from the bill.

The bill will be back on the floor on Monday. I should note that Sen. Rodney Ellis' companion bill is still in committee.

Dutton's amendment, besides exempting bars from the proposed statewide ban, would apparently invalidate an impending ban on smoking in bars in his hometown.

The Houston City Council last fall approved a ban on smoking in most indoor workplaces, including restaurants and bars, effective Sept. 1. Dutton's amendment would say state restrictions supersede a local ordinance.

My guess is that either Dutton's amendment will be removed, or the bill will die. We'll see on Monday.

Vote!

Have you voted yet?

HB218: Disenfranchisement stories

The Texas Democratic Party solicited feedback about people who would be unable to vote if HB218 were to become law. BOR has some of the feedback they got.

From Sondra in Houston:
My grandmother is in her 70's, doesn't drive, doesn't work, and has no form of picture ID. All of the bills are in my grandfather's name and she does not have any of the acceptable forms of non-picture ID. To obtain a certified copy of a birth certificate of marriage license would cost money that my grandparents can't afford to spend just to be allowed to exercise their Constitutional right to vote, which they have been doing for over 50 years already. It doesn't matter whether many people would be harmed by this legislation or just a few. Disenfranchising even 1 single voter is un-America and unacceptable.

[...]

From Katy in Austin:
In my household of 5, there are my son and daughter-in-law, my 90 year old father, my husband and myself. The two who could not vote, denied by me-the judge, would be my son and my father. My son was born with a hole in both ends of all his pockets and loses his cell phone and all his ID too often to count - mothers of sons will recognize this syndrome. My father no longer drives and so does not have a currently valid license - he doesn't need it for his fairly isolated life. None of these have utility bills in their names - they live with me. They are not students, nor do they work for an ID producing entity. None of us has passports or certified copies of birth certificates to prove citizenship. Nor do any receive government checks - Dad's social security check is direct deposited to his bank, and nobody is on the dole.

Basically, these are variations on Royal Masset's mother; there are stories of poor and homeless folks in there, too. This will be the effect of HB218, all in the name of solving a non-existent problem. For shame.

Michael Berry interview

Didn't get to this yesterday - Mike McGuff has a nice interview with soon-to-be-former City Council member and new radio mogul Michael Berry. The interesting bit to me is right here:

McGuff: I'm sure a lot of people wonder, "Why leave politics?" I think a lot of people figured maybe that one day you would run for mayor.

Berry: Mayor of the city of Houston is a dream job. But we have a good mayor now, and he is doing a good job. This was an opportunity that presented itself. I get to use my skill set, and I get to work with a company that is looking for a lot of change. That's very exciting. I see myself as a reformer, changer type.

I still think there is a huge upside to radio as you get more into the web-based programming and as you get into some of the different media. So for me it is a great opportunity. It's an opportunity to reach out and develop media partnerships that have never existed. That's one of my primary missions, because I think some of the best talent in the city of Houston is in print and television as well. For too long we have ignored that.

McGuff: Are you going to miss politics, though? It's a big part of your life, obviously.

Berry: It will have been six years coming up soon, and then I spent two years running, so that's eight years. I will miss the public policy. I won't miss the politics. The politics is a brutal contact sport, and it takes a toll on you. I am fortunate to have a supportive wife. I was fortunate to have friends. But you take some knocks. Everybody should pay their dues, and then move on.

We do indeed have a good Mayor now, but Berry's answer seems to imply that his option was to take this job or run for Mayor in 2007. Obviously, that was never going to happen - Mayor White will have approximately the same level of challenge that he did in 2005. The question is what about 2009, when Mayor White gets term-limited. I know I've always considered Berry to be a potential challenger for Mayor at that time, and I'm not sure I'm seeing a real denial of that possibility. Berry could easily serve as Mister Clear Channel for two years, then having sufficiently recharged his batteries, jump into the 2009 Mayoral race.

I'm not saying he will do this, of course - far from it. Among other things, given how crowded the field may be in two years' time, anybody who wants the job is going to have to start rounding up supporters early on. Frankly, he'd probably have one year max with Clear Channel before he'd have to make the run/don't run decision. I'm just saying he could do this, and until I see him say the words "I am not a candidate for Mayor in 2009", I'm going to keep him in mind as a potential entrant.

And since Council Member Berry has the admitted good taste to be a reader of this blog, perhaps he'll leave a comment on the matter. I'll be happy to revise my statement in the event of updated information.

Dewhurst finally sees the light on CHIP

I've been told that the best way to deal with someone who finally comes around to your way of thinking after resisting for a long time is to pretend he's always agreed with you. With that in mind, let me just say how nice it is to see this.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said Thursday that he has been persuaded to drop his opposition to a House bill expanding coverage in the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Dewhurst has been under pressure from community activists and children's advocates to give a year of coverage instead of requiring families to reapply every six months.

"I have been increasingly persuaded to go to a one-time paper application for 12 months' eligibility," Dewhurst said in an interview.

He added that he wants some income checks for families whose incomes are near the upper limits but that those families would not have to complete a new application.

Dewhurst said he thinks the majority of the Senate will support expansion of CHIP, the government-subsidized health insurance program for working families.

"I want and I believe my colleagues want to ensure that any and all children eligible under the CHIP program are covered," he said.

Barbara Best, Texas director of the Children's Defense Fund, applauded Dewhurst's change of heart.

"We thank him for doing the right thing. This is an excellent step he is taking to improve children's health coverage in Texas," Best said.

I don't know what prompted Dewhurst's change of heart - whether it was seeing the CHIP rolls drop again, or the realization that the chucklehead caucus wants to blow even more money on property tax cuts, or something else entirely. Whatever the case, he's seen the light, and I'm glad for it. I join Ms. Best in thanking him for that.

Meanwhile, the Observer notes that among the myriad explanations being offered for the drop in CHIP re-enrollments, don't overlook the obvious one: that the Accenture fiasco had a large role in it. We're going to pay for that mess for years to come. Heck of a job, Albert.

HB13 maneuvering

HB13 keeps hitting potholes in the House, as a point of order sent it back to committee, but not before Speaker Craddick got a little desperate.

Speaker Tom Craddick took the unprecedented move, at least for him, of asking the House Wednesday night to override its own rules to save the border security bill.

"This is a priority for the state and the whole country," Craddick told reporters, explaining his rare manuver. "This was a real bi-partisan bill. It wasn't a political bill and (is) a true need for the state."

Yet Craddick's move was so rare -- and the tensions on the House so acute -- that it never came to a vote.

Instead, a teary sponsor, Rep. David Swinford, relented and watched his bill be returned to committee over a technicality.

"I do think this rule is sort of over the top," Swinford said of Craddick's effort. But he added: "I've never been so disappointed in this body."

The bill returns to committee where Craddick, from the podium, said he "hoped" it could return to the House floor by Monday or Tuesday.

Afterwards, however, the speaker raised the prospect that the only homeland security bill of the session could be killed by the delay. Thursday is the last day for the House to pass its bills on second reading, and there is no Senate equivalent dealing with homeland security and the border.

"I'm not sure we can get it back," Craddick said.

Rep. Jessica Farrar, in her latest press release, explains what happened:

On Thursday, May 3, HB 13 by Chairman Swinford (R-Dumas) was heard by the full House. Speaker Craddick (R-Midland) rejected an initial point of order raised by Rep. Martinez Fischer (D-San Antonio) which pointed out that the bill analysis referenced a section of the Government Code that does not exist. Despite the fact that this could cause a problem in the future if the referenced section of the Government Code is ever actually created, Speaker Craddick overruled Rep. Martinez Fischer's point of order.

After several hours of debate, Speaker Craddick sustained a point of order raised by Rep. Herrero (D-Robstown). Chairman Swinford, with the support of Speaker Craddick, then asked the House to vote to suspend all necessary rules to ignore the point of order and continue with the debate. This was despite the fact that the rules of the House exist to protect the public's interest. "I can't remember that having happened at any time in the 13 years I have served in the House. We have rules and procedures for a reason, and it is inappropriate for the Speaker to encourage the House to ignore those rules in the manner that he did," said Rep. Farrar.

Rather than have the House vote on the motion to suspend the rules, Chairman Swinford decided to recommit HB 13 to the House Committee on State Affairs. The committee met immediately afterwards to once again consider the bill. "I appreciate the fact that Chairman Swinford was willing to go back and confer with us in committee. As legislators, we have a duty to address the concerns that both we and the public have regarding every bill, and HB 13 is not an exception to that."

Chief among Rep. Farrar's concerns with HB 13 are the placement of the State Office of Homeland Security in the Governor's Office, the granting of program management of the Texas Data Center (TDEx) to the Governor's Division of Emergency Management, and the placement of the Texas Fusion Center in the State Office of Homeland Security. She has also questioned the granting of authority to the State Office of Homeland Security to allocate border and homeland security funding and to develop, administer, and evaluate border and homeland security programs even though it is not a law enforcement agency.

"Border and homeland security are extremely important issues, and I think House members demonstrated their commitment to addressing those issues today. We should not vote out a bill that is not up to par just to be able to say we voted something out. In the interest of what is best for the state of Texas, we should make sure that the final product that leaves the House is what it should be and does not give the public a false sense of security," stated Rep. Farrar.

HB 13 is expected to be reconsidered by the full House on Monday or Tuesday of next week, as it was once again voted out of the House Committee on State Affairs on Thursday evening. The language in the version of HB 13 that will be sent to the floor is much the same as what was considered on the floor today. While Chairman Swinford recommitted the bill, he chose not to change the language except for minor changes and instead prefers to have it amended on the floor.

The two amendments that were passed on the floor on Thursday will need to be re-considered when HB 13 is heard again. The first amendment, by Rep. Raymond (D-Laredo), would have completely moved TDEx to the Texas Department of Public Safety without program management by the Governor's Division of Emergency Management. The second amendment, by Rep. Noriega (D-Houston), would have subjected the Director of the State Office of Homeland Security to confirmation by the Senate.

Emphasis mine. You think that might explain Steve McCraw's little temper tantrum towards Rep. Noriega? Note that even HB13 sponsor David Swinford thinks McCraw should have kept his trap shut. We're still waiting on a real response from Governor Perry, by the way. Just, you know, FYI.

Grits has a lot more on this. He notes that Rep. Swinford snapped at an ACLU lobbyist on his way out of the chamber, saying it would be on them if the bill failed. The only place I saw any coverage of that was in the subscription-only Rio Grande Guardian. I've got an excerpt here:

With aides by his side, Rep. David Swinford, R-Dumas, was leaving an impromptu meeting of the State Affairs Committee that, just before 9 p.m., had rewritten, for the third time, HB 13.

Out of the corner of his eye Swinford noticed Rebecca Bernhardt, the ACLU's immigration, border and national security policy director, huddled with legislative staff.

Swinford turned on his heels, pointed a finger at Bernhardt and said: "If this bill dies, it will be on your conscience." He then turned and trudged off.

The ACLU has had serious reservations about HB 13, particularly a provision that allows the Governor's Office to oversee the state's intelligence operations. Asked what she thought of Swinford's remark, Bernhardt said: "I think he exaggerates my or my organization's influence over the process."

Rep. Jessica Farrar, D-Houston, a leading critic of HB 13, said it was folly to blame the ACLU for the fact that the legislation was derailed.

"I think the whole bill has been flawed throughout," said Farrar, the only Hispanic on the State Affairs Committee. "The reason we have had three major revisions is thanks to you (media) guys that have aired this. But there has been resistance."

As Grits said, you could also include the Texas Observer and its crackerjack reporting on TDEx as reasons why this bill has been justifiably stuck in the muck. More coverage is in the Chron, the Star-Telegram, the Morning News, the Statesman, the El Paso Times, and the McAllen Monitor. Probably the most important nugget, buried in there somewhere, is that Swinford will accept the two amendments Farrar described when the bill comes back out of committee. That will allow for at least a little more oversight of this beast. Stay tuned.

HB218: No action in the Senate yet

The rumor was that the voter ID bill HB218 was going to come up in the Senate yesterday, but according to the TLO all that happened was a cosponsor was authorized. I sure hope Sen. Gallegos is either in Austin or prepared to get back there on a moment's notice, because who knows when this will actually come up.

Did you catch the KPRC story about some bogus voter registration applications that came into the Harris County Tax Assessor's office? Quite the propitious timing, that. Racy Mind has a screenshot and a bit more to the story:

It appears a number of voter registration applications have trickled into the Harris County Tax Office since February, according to the Office spokesman I talked to. Over 50 applications were mailed from El Paso, listing a non-existent Houston address.

The Tax Office spokesman said the news crew was there for something else entirely, but they saw the voter fraud memo on a desk and the reporter said "hey, there's a story!" So they did one.

Never mind that no fraudulent votes could have taken place - there would be nowhere to deliver the voter reg cards since the address doesn't exist.

Not to mention that the reg cards received by the Tax Assessor's office are clearly not Texas forms, as anyone who has ever registered a voter well knows. Among other things, party affiliation is not part of the registration form under current law. Which is something I'm sure Paul Bettencourt knows. If this is the "widespread voter fraud" that the GOP swears (but has no evidence to prove) is happening, it's clearly not much of a threat to anything.

UPDATE: The Statesman answers my questions about Sen. Gallegos and HB218.

Sen. Mario Gallegos Jr. of Houston, who's been away from the Capitol most of the legislative session after a liver transplant, showed up in the Senate on Thursday to join a bloc of Democrats opposing the voter ID bill.

Under Senate rules, two-thirds of the chamber, or 21 senators, must agree to bring a bill up for debate. With Gallegos present, the 11 Democrats have enough power to block it.

"We're 11 strong in unity," Gallegos said Thursday. He said he planned to be there every day for the rest of the session to help stop the bill. The five-month session ends May 28.

Gallegos said he feels up to being at the Senate for the rest of the month.

"Is it easy? No. No, I'm not going to lie to you," he said. "I feel OK. I'm not a hundred percent, so I've got to take my medicine."

Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the Senate's presiding officer, had warned that he might call the voter bill up for debate as soon as Thursday and gave Gallegos a 24-hour warning, as he'd requested. The proposal never came up Thursday.

[...]

Dewhurst said he'll take his first opportunity to pass the bill.

My interpretation of that last sentence is "Dewhurst will wait and hope that Gallegos needs to return to Houston at some point, at which time he will bring up HB218". Have I mentioned that we need to keep Sen. Gallegos' continued good health in our prayers? Link via Stace.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that the registration form shown in the KPRC story is a federal form, which is valid for any state. It's still a very clumsy attempt at fraud, if that's what it really was, and quite convenient from a timing perspective.

Early voting: West University Place

I know pretty much nothing about the election going on in West University Place for its Mayor and City Council, other than I've seen quite a few signs advertising this candidate or that along Kirby and Buffalo Speedway. For those who do want to know more, the West U Examiner reports from a candidate forum, with a summary of each contender's opinions on various issues. Anybody out there have a comment on these folks?

I've cast my ballot for Melissa Noriega. Have you cast yours yet? In the spirit of early compliance with the proposed new voter ID regulations, I offered to give a DNA sample to the election judge so they could be 100% sure of my identity and citizenship. For some reason, they didn't take me up on it. Obviously, some training will be needed prior to implementation.

Remember, in addition to voting for her, you can help Melissa by phone calling and blockwalking. Early voting ends on Tuesday, May 8, and Election Day is Saturday, May 12. Please get involved in any way you can.

Benefit for Mark Strawn tonight

The fundraiser for Mark Strawn is tonight. Marty Hajovsky has all the details. We hope to see you there.

Mayor White editorializes for clean air

Not sure why this is in the Morning News and not the Chron, but here it is:

In Texas, we value freedom and resist bureaucratic interference. But we also understand that "a person's right to throw their fist ends where another person's nose begins."

Texas took a big step backward, in violation of these principles, with the state Senate passage on Wednesday of SB 1317, which limits the age-old right of cities to protect citizens from public nuisances. Two years ago, Houston used this established right to dramatically cut levels of a dangerous carcinogen - butadiene 1,3 - emitted by a petrochemical company.

On some blocks in the mostly Hispanic Manchester area, which had been exposed to this chemical for years, most of the households of long-term residents have experienced cancer. We now seek to reduce excessive concentrations of benzene, another carcinogen, in parts of our city.

SB 1317 strips away the power of cities to protect their citizens from toxic substances put into the air upwind from large concentrations of residents.

And the shame of it all is that it didn't have to happen. Let's hope that the House is more responsible.

Bye-bye, Three Brothers

A month ago, Weingarten officially announced its plans for the River Oaks Shopping Center. And now today is the last day there for the Three Brothers Bakery.

"We got a phone call from Weingarten (the property owner) that we need to be out by May 4," said Janice Jucker, wife of Robert Jucker, a second generation owner.

And as that date quickly approaches, the Juckers are scrambling to find another space, which, according to Jucker, hasn't been easy.

"If we could find comparable rent in the same area, that would be great," she said. "But the thing you have to really consider is we're selling cakes and cookies. We're not selling $100 shoes, so we have to sell a lot to make a lot."

As of April 26, Jucker said they had not received a written notice from Weingarten, only a phone call. However, she added Weingarten had at one time offered a space at Highway 290 and Hollister Street, about 10 miles from their current location.

The Three Bros. River Oaks location serves as a storefront, while Jucker said all of the baking and about 70 percent of the business is done at the 4036 S. Braeswood Blvd. location. That is where the company is directing its River Oaks customers until an alternative is found.

[...]

Jucker said Three Bros. will not shut its doors quietly. She is in the process of planning a farewell party for its last day.

"We'll probably serve cookies shaped like wrecking balls," she said.

I think I know where I'll be stopping on my way home from work. Just a shame it won't be for a happier occasion. Hopefully, they'll find something in the area that they can afford.

No speed trap cameras

While red light cameras remain controversial, automated devices for nabbing speeders got a unanimous thumbs down in the House.

Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Southlake, said there's no conclusive evidence that automated devices such as cameras or radar result in fewer road crashes. Moreover, cameras could be used not just to crack down on speeders, but to go after motorists not wearing seat belts or motorists with expired inspection stickers. "At what point do you stop? What does it end?" she said.

Truitt said she has a good feeling House Bill 922 will sail through the Senate. It's sponsored by Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas.

A half dozen House members railed against the use of automated devices to go after drivers, saying they constitute an invasion of privacy and are nothing short of an attempt by municipalities to "pick the pockets" of constitutents , as one member put it.

Heated debate centered not on the automated traps but on whether the bill should be amended to include a ban on red light cameras at intersections, which House members have tried to pass in other sessions. Ultimately, the amendment was rejected on the grounds it might ruin the chances of HB 922 passing in the Senate.

Automated speed traps have been installed by at least two towns, Rhome and Marble Falls.

In case you're curious, Carona's bill to limit the amount of revenue a municipality can derive from red light cameras, which passed the Senate a month ago, is still in committee in the House.

"Pro Tem Four" to be tried together

Seven months after their joint not guilty plea, the four former Mayor Pro Tem staffers who were accused of giving themselves improper bonuses have a trial date.

State District Judge Michael McSpadden scheduled a Nov. 12 trial for Rosita Hernandez, Florence Watkins, Christopher Mays and Theresa Orta.

The decision, with which attorneys for both sides agreed, was based on the fact that the four were indicted together and their defenses are expected to be similar.

Each could ask later for a separate trial if it becomes clear that the defense strategies will differ sharply, said Assistant District Attorney Don Smyth.

Attorney Walter Boyd said his client, Hernandez, is looking forward to getting the matter resolved.

"There's no basis for the allegations against my client or any of the others," Boyd said.

Smyth said he, too, wants to get the case resolved because "somebody did something wrong."

"Whether it's criminal or not, we'll put it in front of 12 citizens and let them decide," he said.

The four, who are free on bail, have pleaded not guilty to charges of theft by a public servant and tampering with a public record. A Harris County grand jury last year issued a total of nine indictments.

Not mentioned in the story but presumed by me is that Council Member Carol Alvarado will testify, also presumably for the prosecution, at the criminal trial. Mark your calendars now.

"Budgets are moral documents"

CPPP:

Today the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) announced that 17,078 fewer children will be covered by the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in May than in April. This is the second largest number of children ever to be disenrolled in one month, second only to immediately after state budget cuts in 2003.

Full release here. Anyone remember HB109? It passed the House a month ago, and time is running out, given that the Senate still has to approve it, a joint committee needs to iron out the differences, and both chambers need to pass it again.

What's Governor Perry's response? He doesn't care.

Gov. Rick Perry urged lawmakers to cut school property tax rates by an additional $2.5 billion Wednesday, and House Speaker Tom Craddick said his chamber is already on track to consider the idea.

But Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who presides over the Senate, said the state can't afford it unless revenues dramatically increase, not if lawmakers want to balance the budget and meet their commitment in future years to subsidize already-promised tax relief.

"It would be imprudent to send money back now, knowing that we very likely might not be able to balance our budget and provide the local school property tax reductions that we all want to do," said Dewhurst, parting from the two other top GOP leaders but on track with the House and Senate budget-writing committees.

Perry took a hard line in his latest push, which comes less than a month before the Legislature must adjourn.

"If the session were to be over with today, we could point to precious few accomplishments on behalf of the taxpayers, outside of continuing the property tax cuts of the last session and passage of budgets in the two chambers," he said. "Taxpayers have pretty much been shut out to date."

Dewhurst said, "I can't believe that he said that, because he knows as well as all of us that we worked real hard this year to set aside the money to provide the (cut in) local school property taxes not just in this next biennium ... but the next biennium of 2010-2011."

Here's the CPPP again (PDF). What was it someone said last year? Oh, yes, budgets are moral documents. Well, to some of us they are, anyway.

How about those centralized voter databases?

Sheesh.

A $14 million centralized voting-records system used by 224 Texas counties has so many computer flaws that voter registration officials in many counties want the state to scrap it.

The system already has kicked registered voters' names off the lists during early voting that started Monday and forced others to wait as long as 10 minutes while the system verified voter registration. One of those left off the rolls was Prairie View Mayor Frank Jackson.

The system, intended to meet federal requirements for centralizing voter information statewide, has been plagued by so many problems since it began operating in January that some counties want out after the May 12 election.

"This particular system is just not working," said Galveston County Tax Assessor-Collector Cheryl Johnson, one of the most vocal critics of the Texas Election Administration Management System, or TEAM.

Said Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector Paul Bettencourt:

"This new database is causing statewide voting problems. ... It's a bad technology system coming home to roost."

[...]

Candy Arth, president of the Tax Assessor-Collector Association of Texas, said many members are angry about TEAM. "They are ready to throw it out the window," Arth said.

Arth, carrying a sheaf of complaints from tax assessor-collectors, met with Secretary of State Roger Williams two weeks ago to voice her membership's complaints.

One of those demands was that the Secretary of State's Office take the heat for all the problems. "We are elected and the people are going to throw us out of office because you won't take the hit for this," Johnson said about the demand.

All of this is happening, of course, at the same time as the Lege is in the process of giving more centralized authority to the Secretary of State. Great idea! What could possibly go wrong with that?

And on that note, today is apparently the day that the Senate takes up HB218. I trust we've all said a prayer for the continued good health of Sen. Mario Gallegos today.

The swiftboating of Rick Noriega

The politics of HB13 have taken a decidedly ugly turn, as the Observer reports.

Gov. Rick Perry's Homeland Security Director Steve McCraw has found the enemy -- and it's Houston State Representative Rick Noriega, a lieutenant colonel in the Texas Army National Guard.

In an astounding 3-page letter, written on the Governor of Texas' letterhead, McCraw questions Noriega's concern for the safety of the homeland with a tone that has to be read to be believed. In a fear-mongering and bait-and-switch style, McCraw misrepresents the debate and belittles Noriega.

McCraw writes, "Since it is your position that our border does not pose a terrorist threat, and because of that position you believe it is unnecessary to expand resources in protecting our border, I will make myself available to you or your staff immediately to provide a detailed briefing on why this mistaken position can cost lives."

Noriega fired off a response to McCraw's boss Rick Perry. "Last Friday, I received a letter from your Director of Homeland Security clearly implying that I favored policies that allowed terrorists free entry through our borders. This accusation is both insulting and irresponsible, particularly directed toward someone who has served the State of Texas at the border."

Noriega had mentioned this to me at the house party we hosted this past Saturday for Melissa. The idea of a two-bit hack like Steve McCraw smearing someone like Rick Noriega would be funny if it weren't so depressingly common these days. Given that one of HB13's cosponsors thinks that the problem it's run into in the House is the fact that it's McCraw who's in charge of Homeland Security, you'd think Governor Perry would be more attentive to the situation. But perhaps the Governor is too busy making his own phony claims about the border to pay too much attention to his underlings. We'll see how or if he responds to Noriega.

UPDATE: Vince has more.

HB1224 and Applied Behavior Analysis

It's easy to forget sometimes as we follow the politics of things like toll road moratoriums and primary dates that there are bills in the Lege that can have a huge positive effect on people's lives, if only they can make it through the process unmolested. HB1224 is one such bill. Pete explains why:

HB 1224 - Relating to health benefit plan coverage for enrollees with autism spectrum disorder, passed out of the Insurance Committee in the Texas Legislature earlier this week, and the Committee report was sent to Calendars on Tuesday. The bill is a companion to SB 419, which passed the Senate floor unanimously, with one exception: HB 1224 came out of Committee with an amendment removing Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy from the list of services mandated for children aged 3-5.

ABA therapy as it pertains to children on the autistic spectrum involves teaching social and verbal skills to those not able to learn such things normally, which is to say through observation and imitation. In re-routing these learning pathways, the hope is to get the child back on course to mainstream life. It's intense - 20-40 hours a week of therapy in most cases, much of it one-on-one - and it's expensive, putting most college tuition structures to shame.

ABA is also effective. Half of children who have an early, intensive ABA program are able to function in normal schools with minimal or no support. It's considered the most effective early intervention for young children with autism, and has been recommended by the Surgeon General since 1987.

Finally, it mitigates the cost to the state, estimated at $3 million over an autistic person's lifetime, if they don't receive early intervention. Contrast this with the cost of a .5% increase in insurance premiums.

In its original form, HB1224 would be directly beneficial to a large number of children in Texas, while at the same time being fiscally prudent for taxpayers. In its present form, as amended by the House Insurance Committee, that benefit disappears. That's just wrong.

The good news is that it can still be fixed. I urge you to read Pete's post so you can understand the personal stake he and his family have in this, and then take the time to call your State Rep and ask him or her to support putting ABA coverage back in HB1224. Thanks very much.

Early voting: Current info in San Antonio

The San Antonio Current takes a look at that city's municipal races, ranging from the whimsical to actual candidate questionnaires. If nothing else, the latter makes it clear that Jacob Dell has no business being on any City Council. Click on and see for yourself.

Here in Houston, you can see the day-to-day early vote counts here (PDF). I'm pretty sure that similar records exist somewhere in the archives for previous elections, but I can't find them right now. If and when I do, I'll be able to get some kind of feel for how turnout compares to other recent elections.

Have you voted for Melissa Noriega yet? Whether you have or you haven't, you can also help her out by volunteering to phone bank and/or blockwalk. Contact the campaign, or leave me a comment here and I'll hook you up. There's always room for one more volunteer.

Dan Grant announces for CD10

I'm aware of several Congressional candidates from 2006 who are planning to run again next year, as well as a few new hopefuls who are currently exploring a bid, but this is the first formal announcement of a candidacy by a newcomer that I'm aware of. What's more, I know of at least one other Democratic contender for CD10, which would give it two contested primaries in a row after being avoided as hopeless in 2004. Which is as it should be, especially given Mike McCaul's underwhelming performance last year. Click on for Dan Grant's press release announcing his entry into the race.

Foreign policy expert Dan Grant today filed the required paperwork to launch a bid for the U.S. Congress, saying that the families and small businesses of District 10 deserve a fresh start and a new direction in Washington, D.C.

"We need a positive change in Washington to restore balance, integrity, and mainstream values to our representation in the corridors of Congress," Grant said.

Grant recently returned to Texas after serving as part of the international civilian team in Baghdad, where his duties included helping the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq prepare and conduct the historic elections of 2005.

Calling for positive change to improve national security, move toward energy independence, reduce the national debt, and provide a level playing field for middle-class families who work hard and play by the rules, Grant said he will go to the nation's capital to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

"Let's put partnership first and partisanship last so that we can get the job done -- in Iraq and in our neighborhoods from Austin to Houston," Grant said.

As deputy director of Iraq's largest out-of-country voting program, Grant oversaw an unprecedented effort to give democracy a chance in the Middle East by registering eligible voters in major U.S. cities for Iraq's Transitional National Assembly election. He oversaw a staff of over a thousand and a budget of millions of dollars and ran the day-to-day operations of all senior personnel.

In Afghanistan, Grant helped coordinate security and policy planning for that nation's post-Taliban constitutional convention on the behalf of USAID, and previously served as an operations officer for the massive effort to re-establish Afghanistan's Central Bank.

In Kosovo, Grant played a key role as an elections supervisor in organizing the 2001 elections, working for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to help organize more than 100 polling stations and hire staff to facilitate the historic vote. He also monitored and enforced polling place procedures for important municipal elections throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina in the late 1990s.

Growing up in Austin, Grant interned for Congressman Jake Pickle during his senior year at McCallum High School. He was a foreign policy consultant for the John Kerry presidential campaign in 2004 while stationed in Kabul and later while based in Washington, D.C.

Grant is a graduate of the London School of Economics with a Master's of Science in Government Administration and Public Policy, and Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. with a Bachelor's in Foreign Service.

Grant lives in Austin, where he works as an international relations consultant, and is a long-time member of St. Austin's Church.

More from Rep. Farrar on HB13

The following is another press release from Rep. Jessica Farrar (my State Rep) regarding the Homeland Security bill HB13:

On Friday, April 27, HB 13 by Chairman Swinford (R-Dumas) was recommitted to the House Committee on State Affairs. On Monday, April 30, the newly amended version of HB 13 was voted out of the committee and sent to the House floor for a vote. It is scheduled to be heard on the House floor on Thursday, May 3. Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) has repeatedly voiced her concerns regarding HB 13, stating that while she agrees with what the bill aims to accomplish she feels the language in the bill does not provide what the Texas law enforcement community needs to combat the crime we currently face on the border and throughout the state.

The newest version of HB 13 fails to address Rep. Farrar's primary concern that duties that belong with a law enforcement agency are placed with a political office. That political office is run by a civilian that is appointed by the Governor. "The State Office of Homeland Security is placed in the Office of the Governor, and it is not overseen by any law enforcement agency or personnel. Yet we, as a legislature, are expected to give this office $100 million plus the authority to develop, administer, and execute activities that should be placed under a law enforcement agency such as the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). That does not make sense to me," stated Rep. Farrar.

Another major concern is that while the newest version of HB 13 moves the Texas Data Exchange (TDEx) to DPS, it continues to give program management of this criminal database to the Governor's Division of Emergency Management, which is a part of the State Office of Homeland Security. The Criminal Law Enforcement Division of DPS is currently staffed with crime analysts, data analysts, and other personnel that develop, maintain, and administer other DPS databases. "DPS does not need the Governor's Division of Emergency Management to provide any program management or support for TDEx. This is simply to guarantee that the Governor's Office continues to have access to and command of the highly sensitive criminal and personal information in TDEx, and that is unacceptable," said Rep. Farrar.

Yet another concern related to intelligence is the creation of the Texas Fusion Center, which is placed in the State Office of Homeland Security. The Texas Fusion Center will merge data from law enforcement and the private sector. It is meant to facilitate the sharing of crime and homeland security related information and intelligence at all levels of law enforcement. This is a problem because highly sensitive criminal and personal data will be controlled by a political office. There is also a possibility that the Texas Fusion Center will not be allowed to participate in the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, a nationwide communications capability endorsed by the US Department of Justice that will link together all levels of law enforcement, as it is meant specifically for law enforcement agencies.

Along those same lines, the ability of both TDEx and the Texas Fusion Center to work cooperatively with other law enforcement agencies that run criminal databases is compromised because the State Office of Homeland Security is not a law enforcement agency. "Other national and international law enforcement agencies are hesitant to share highly sensitive criminal information and intelligence with a political and non-law enforcement agency. I fear we are risking the level of assistance and cooperation we will get from other law enforcement entities if we do not place both TDEx and the Texas Fusion Center completely under DPS and remove the access and control HB 13 currently gives to the Governor's Office," said Rep. Farrar.

While revisions to the language in HB 13 pertaining to the Border Security Council were made, the end result has not been a change for the better. Members of the Border Security Council are now appointed by the Governor, including the chair of the council. "The duties currently assigned to the Border Security Council should be carried out by law enforcement professionals, not political appointees," said Rep. Farrar.

The Border Security Council now has a strictly advisory role, as the State Office of Homeland Security decides how to allocate all border and homeland security funding. "The end result is that we still have the Governor's office deciding who gets money and support. There is no protocol to ensure that the funds for both border and homeland security programs around the state are distributed based on need," said Rep. Farrar.

In addition, the State Office of Homeland Security will be the entity that sets performance standards, reporting requirements, and audit methods for all border and homeland security funding and programs. "This is still a case of self-policing. No one else getting state funding is allowed this privilege," said Rep. Farrar.

HB 13 also requires local and state law enforcement officers to have to report certain crimes to the State Office of Homeland Security. "While this creates a massive new and unnecessary reporting requirement on our officers, it also puts the State Office of Homeland Security into the role of monitoring local law enforcement on a state-wide level. There is no need for this, and it gives even more control of law enforcement matters to a political office," stated Rep. Farrar.

"This bill should be about empowering our law enforcement community throughout Texas so that it is able to get the job done. Unfortunately, HB 13 fails to do this. I believe both our border and homeland security will suffer as a result of this, and I ask my colleagues to seriously consider the consequences of the current language in this bill as it comes to the House floor on Thursday. The citizens of Texas are asking for results, and this legislation will not give them that," said Rep. Farrar.

Rep. Farrar's previous statement on the subject is here. As a reminder, border police chiefs also have strong reservations about HB13.

UPDATE: More from Grits.

More border fence opposition

Following up on yesterday's piece about border fence pushback from the folks who are on the business end of it, we have this surprisingly unified response from Texas officials.

"It's clear that our state leaders, and I'm going to say the Legislature as a whole -- I can't speak for every member -- is not in support of this wall. It will bring negative effects," said Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville.

The outcry came after a new map emerged showing federal plans for the border fence. Border community leaders said they were assured they would be able to give input before any fence plans went forward, but they said that never happened.

They said more Border Patrol officers and camera surveillance are better ways to use the money and that the Rio Grande provides a natural river barrier that could be more easily patrolled if thick brush were cleared from its banks.

The Customs and Border Protection map depicts a planned structure running piecemeal along a 600-mile stretch of Texas from Presidio to Brownsville.

"I think the president himself needs to get a gauge in his home state," Lucio said.

Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa, a McAllen Democrat, called the proposed fence a "wall of shame."

Members of the Texas Border Coalition, consisting of border mayors, county judges and economic development commissions, met with Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst today and aides to Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick. They said both leaders offered support for their opposition to the fence.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry did not meet with the group today because his schedule was full, an aide said. In the past, Perry has said he disagrees with those who want a wall or fence along the entire U.S.-Mexico border, though he has said some fencing in urban areas makes sense.

"Building a wall along the border is not an answer to securing the border. It would create a false sense of security," said Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger. "The governor does believe that strategic fencing along high population areas makes sense."

But more manpower and other security resources -- not an unmanned wall -- are better options, she said.

We're speaking. Is anyone listening?

TYC update: Downsizing the wrong way

I've not been keeping up with the latest developments at the Texas Youth Commission these days, but fortunately Grits for Breakfast has been. To sum up:

- The TYC is losing lots of staff members in the wake of the scandals. Remember when I said that their new policy of releasing the kids whose sentences had been unfairly extended was a good way to help bring some balance to the staff/inmate ratio? This will more than offset that, and that's not a good thing.

- Worse, the TYC is looking to fire staffers with misdemeanor convictions on their record. If you thought it was hard to adequately staff these locations before, it'll be a lot harder now. I can't see what purpose this new policy serves.

- On the other hand, not everybody who's leaving deserves sympathy. Case in point, Lydia Bernard.

Barnard, who rose quickly through the managerial ranks during her 20-year career, failed to substantiate and act on allegations that Ray Brookins, an assistant superintendent at the Pyote lockup in West Texas, was meeting alone at night with youths in his custody during 2004 and 2005, the commission reported.

I refer you back to the original Observer story for full details.

More on the Senate's anti-clean air bill

The Observer fills in a few blanks regarding SB1317, the Sen. Mike Jackson anti-clean air bill that passed yesterday.

Houston Democrats very nearly beat back SB 1317 [Monday]. The bill survived, for the moment, because of Sen. Eddie Lucio (D-Brownsville). Legislation can only be taken up in the Senate if two-thirds of the body - 21 senators - vote to "suspend the rules " that bills be heard in order. With 20 Rs and 11 Ds in the Senate, the minority can kill any bill if they stick together. On SB 1317, Lucio broke with his 10 colleagues by staying neutral on the key suspension-of-the-rules vote. His abstention denied the Dems of the 11 votes necessary to prevent the bill from coming up for debate.

It was a curious choice since Lucio decided to vote against the bill later (when supporters needed only 16 votes). Lucio has been known to trade his vote before when Senate leadership needs to flip a Democrat.

Lucio told the Observer that Jackson had explained the bill to him a few days earlier as "one city going into another city and trying to pass an ordinance." So Lucio pledged to support Jackson. And apparently, in typical Democrat fashion, Lucio says no one bothered to give him the memo that SB 1317 was deeply opposed by Houston Democrats, especially the ailing Sen. Mario Gallegos. When Lucio found that out a few minutes before the suspension-of-the-rules vote, he was conflicted.

"I didn't want to be shown voting against Sen. Gallegos, but at the same time, I didn't want to desert Sen. Jackson completely," Lucio explained. He said that after he heard more about the bill, he decided he was against it.

That explanation makes me slightly less mad at Sen. Lucio, but isn't fully exculpatory. He could've asked around a bit before he gave his promise to Sen. Jackson. I know, the Senate is a clubby place and all that, but it seems to me that unless Jackson specifically informed him that Houston Dems hated his bill, he wasn't dealing straight with Lucio. As such, I see no reason why Lucio shouldn't have been a bit more coy. At the very least, I hope this is a lesson learned.

The bill still must pass the Senate on third reading. That may not happen. Lucio says he won't vote to suspend the rules -- which also requires 21 votes -- when SB 1317 comes up for final passage.

That sounds good, but unfortunately when it came up for third reading today, Mario Gallegos wasn't present, so even with Lucio's vote against suspension, the damn thing passed. See page 16 (PDF) for the details. Thanks a lot, Eddie.

The Observer also got a reaction from Mayor Bill White to the Senate vote:

"I was disappointed [with the Senate vote] but I believe the majority of people in our state want a state with cleaner air," White remarked

He went on: "Texas is changing and from all neighborhoods in our community - with people from all backgrounds, all partisan persuasions, all income levels - I get a sense that people are tired of business as usual on air quality. I feel that, you know, Texas some decades ago including Houston acted as though our land and air was infinite and anything interfering with industry could reduce economic growth. Our economy's changed. Now the growth in our region which is the economic powerhouse of this state...depends on a broad base of businesses and the ability to attract skilled workers and entrepreneurs that can locate anywhere."

White said that nuisance enforcement actions would hardly bring the industry to its knees. Civil nuisance violations are a Class C misdemeanor, amounting to a maximum $2000 fine. That works out to about how much profit the Houston petrochemical industry makes in 2 seconds, White calculates. The point of the proposed revisions to the nuisance ordinance, he said, is to set scientifically-based standards for 10 air toxics. Voluntary compliance from industry is preferred - and indeed White has encouraged companies to come to the table to work on an equitable solution - but the city still wants some legal stick to back up the standards.

I know this much: This issue will be a part of the 2008 campaign, in Jackson's SD11 and elsewhere. Jackson's '08 opponent, Joe Jaworski, sent out the following email after Monday's actions, which I've reproduced beneath the fold. Expect to hear a lot more about this in the coming months.

Finally, here are some thoughts on the matter from Rep. Ellen Cohen. There will be more on this, believe me.

Sometimes, legislation in the Texas Capitol becomes a matter of life and death.

SB 1317, written by the chemical industry's lobbyists and promoted by Sen. Mike Jackson (R-La Porte), lets cancer-causing toxins pour into the atmosphere around Houston, putting millions of citizens at risk of chronic disease. It prohibits city leaders from addressing pollution produced outside their city limits that drifts in and threatens their own citizens.

Under the guise of sovereign immunity, Sen. Jackson wants to prevent city leaders like Houston Mayor Bill White from holding polluters responsible for poisoning the air we breathe. How many more children have to die from these carcinogens before state government does what it's supposed to do?

Here are the facts: Texas is home to four of the most toxic-laden counties in the nation -- Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, and Jefferson. Yet, the state's environmental protection agency, the misnamed Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), has historically looked the other way under the direction of commissioners appointed by the Governor and confirmed by Sen. Jackson's own Nominations Committee.

Every attempt by Mayor White or other area leaders to force TCEQ to find a regional solution to a regional problem has been ignored by the state. While most of the industry is working to voluntarily reduce emissions -- after all, they have to breathe the toxins, too -- a small group of polluters prefers to have Sen. Jackson carry their special-interest legislation to escape accountability.

TCEQ needs to do its job, set industry-wide standards for these emissions, and ensure a level playing field so that responsible corporate citizens aren't at a disadvantage against those who refuse to do the right thing just because they have a friend in the Texas Senate willing to carry their special-interest legislation.

Cities compete every day for economic opportunities and professional talent. Most people have a choice where to work and live. So, Texas had better make it clear to the world that we don't approve of polluted air or countless businesses and families will pass on Texas and prosper somewhere else. Sen. Jackson may not understand this, but mainstream Texans do. They know that real leadership is about finding ways to balance the need for energy and products with the right to breathe clean air -- and that we can do both.

Sincerely,

Joe Jaworski

Brush your teeth!

Among the many survival skills one needs as a parent is a feel for what battles to pick. That's what was going through my head as I read this story about dental hygiene in kids today. This passage in particular stood out to me:

"The same things contributing to the obesity epidemic can also contribute to tooth decay," said Dr. Gary Rozier, a dentist who teaches public health policy at the University of North Carolina.

Inadequate dental care may also play a role. Cavities in young children can form very quickly, and parents should begin bringing their children to the dentist at age 1, said Dr. Joel Berg, chairman of the University of Washington's Department of Pediatric Dentistry.

Parents also must help their young children brush properly. "Preschoolers don't have the dexterity to really clean their teeth," Berg said.

Baby teeth naturally fall out as children age, but dentists say untreated decay can spread and is too dangerous to go untreated.

Rotten baby teeth are treated with fillings or -- if the decay is extensive -- extraction. But baby teeth fill certain spaces in the mouth, so their early removal may lead to crowding when adult teeth come in.

Preschoolers may not have the dexterity to really clean their teeth, but they do have the indomitable will to insist on doing it all by themselves anyway. I know that if I were a better daddy, I'd work through the screaming temper tantrum that would accompany my own insistence that I need to help her with this task so that I can show her how to do it right, but I'm not. I comfort myself with the thought that by not making toothbrushing excessively traumatic, I'll someday have a more dextrous post-preschooler who is both capable and willing to brush her teeth regularly and correctly. I'll just hope she doesn't collect a mouthful of cavities in the meantime. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to crawl under my desk and wallow in my own inadequacy for awhile. I'll be back in a bit.

Perry gets the toll road blues

Game on.

A two-year freeze on private toll-road contracts is on its way to Gov. Rick Perry's desk.

House members voted 139-1 today to accept Senate amendments to a bill that would halt new private-sector toll-road deals for two years. But the complex bill exempts most major North Texas toll projects already in the works.

The one was, of course, Mike Krusee, who somewhat unexpectedly let the original bill out of committee the other day. If it was intended as a blocking maneuver of some kind, I'd say it failed.

Both chambers overwhelmingly passed the bill in an effort to rein in the state's controversial 50-year deals with private companies to build and run certain toll roads. Senators approved the bill 30-1 on Monday after adding a late amendment.

"Today the Legislature sent a clear message: We will not sell our transportation system at bargain-basement prices," said Sen. Robert Nichols, R-Jacksonville, a former state transportation commissioner and an ardent critic of the state's recent toll-road policies.

Mr. Perry, who has championed private toll roads as a solution to the state's growing traffic congestion, now has 10 days to consider a veto. Last week, he released a statement strongly hinting that he would wield his veto power.

"We cannot have public policy in this state that shuts down road construction, kills jobs, harms air quality, prevents access to federal highway dollars and creates an environment within local government that is ripe for political corruption," Mr. Perry said.

Will he veto and risk an override? Who knows, but it'll be fun to watch either way.

Eye on Williamson and Burka have some of the backstory on this. More intriguingly, Senator Hutchison sent a letter to the head of the Federal Highway Administration chastising them for overstepping their bounds in advocating against the moratorium. (I know, a Bush Administration guy inappropriately meddling in the political process. Who'da thunk it?) The letter itself is here if you're curious.

Buddy, can you spare a cockroach?

Only in Houston...

In a city with trillions of American cockroaches, the Houston Museum of Natural Science has agreed to pay a quarter per bug -- up to 1,000 -- as it seeks to populate a new insect exhibit alongside its Cockrell Butterfly Center.

Nancy Greig, the museum's curator of entomology, insists the public payday for roaches isn't just a marketing ploy.

"Absolutely, this wasn't devised as a joke," Greig said. "We needed more roaches for the exhibit, so I sent this message out to everyone in the museum asking people to bring them in. Well, someone decided to tell the press, and all hell has broken loose.

"But we really do need cockroaches."

You'd think that one mating pair and the fullness of time would be sufficient, but what the heck. SciGuy has more.

HB626 passes out of the House

Part II of the Very Bad Day At The Lege happened when the "compromise" version of HB626 passed out of the House yesterday. I'm going to hand off to Eye on Williamson for a minute, as he hits the main points about this:

One of my first impressions of this bill is that if we're going to invest all these NEW powers in the Secretary of State (SOS), this office must become an elected office and NOT stay as a political appointment by the governor.

That being said we now have to look forward to the proposition of the SOS hiring a bunch of new staff to perform this operation or, low and behold, they outsource/privatize this to somebody's brother in-law's IT company, which will fudge up our voter rolls just like happened in Florida in 2000.

Best case with this bill is that whatever "fraud" it purports to fix - and there's very little, if any, evidence that it does, and if it did this NEW law grandfathers in anyone that's already on the rolls fraudulently - it opens up a whole new huge can-of-worms. That can is verifying voters citizenship which leaves new registrants open to having their registrations disallowed due to partisan politics, computer error, or malice.

Part of the problem is noted in the Dallas Morning News story:

[Oppenents] argued that the state has no reciprocity agreements with other states' birth-certificate and naturalization databases and that trying to cross-check millions of voters against numerous lists like Social Security and driver's license records would produce too many errors.

So first, we're giving an awful lot more power to the unelected office of Secretary of State. Second, we'll need to increase the size of the SOS' office, just to handle the bureaucracy of verifying voters' citizenship, which they may not be able to do effectively because it depends in part on how every other state handles birth records. And third, all this expanded government (would someone please enlighten me as to how this is "conservative"?) is being done to eliminate a type of fraud that is barely a blip on the radar, while at the same time granting amnesty to any actually fraudulent voters who may currently be registered. Did I miss anything? Oh, yeah, it's still not clear how much this will cost and how it will be funded. Isn't this fun?

Meanwhile, HB218 moves over to the Senate where the health of Sen. Mario Gallegos will be crucial.

All 11 Senate Democrats are needed to block the bill from coming to the floor for debate, where the Republican majority will easily pass it.

"I'll be here," Gallegos promised Tuesday from the Senate floor, where he put in a full day against the advice of his doctor.

Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst promised to give Gallegos 24-hours notice before the bill hits the Senate floor -- but only once, and that came Tuesday.

There won't be another notification should the bill be delayed today.

Senate Democrats say that if House Bill 218 is introduced on the floor while Gallegos is in Houston undergoing medical treatment, they'll filibuster until he can make it back to Austin.

"We've got 10 who can filibuster until Mario gets back. Understand that somebody is going to filibuster," said Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, D-San Antonio.

"I think we can talk for 24 hours," said Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston.

So a showdown over voter identification is guaranteed.

Gallegos was in Austin yesterday. I don't know where he is today, and I'm not sure when the Senate will take up HB218. All I know is that anyone who thinks of weaseling out at this point will need to explain to every Democrat in the state why he or she wasn't up to the task in the same way Mario Gallegos was. Stay tuned.

Senate votes against clean air

Yesterday was a bad day in both chambers of the Lege. We'll start with the Senate, where a bill to block the City of Houston's effort to enforce clean air regulations on plants outside its city limits was passed.

Mayor Bill White's plans to clean up Houston's air were dealt a blow Tuesday when the Senate tentatively passed a measure that would prohibit local governments from regulating pollution coming from outside their boundaries.

"This isn't over air quality. It's over city sovereignty," said Sen. Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, who carried the bill. "This is a policy issue, not an environmental bill."

Jackson also acknowledged the bill had become a partisan issue. It was passed along party lines, in a 20-11 vote.

Sen. Mario Gallegos, D-Houston, just back from a liver transplant, attempted to filibuster the bill but gave up his efforts to talk the bill to death after less than 30 minutes.

Until now, the city had successfully blocked legislative attempts to limit its power to clean Houston's air.

White wants to be able to bring nuisance charges against industrial plants outside Houston that send unhealthy concentrations of certain pollutants inside the city.

White said he would prefer not to use nuisance laws to crack down on air pollution from elsewhere, but he proposed that approach because the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has failed to adopt strong-enough standards limiting pollutants.

"For years, we have urged Texas state regulators to set maximum levels for the concentration of carcinogens, such as benzene. They should adopt the city's detailed plan to reduce benzene or develop their own plan," White said after Tuesday's vote.

"Cleaning our region's air is good for public health and our economy. We are not interested in reducing excessive emissions of air (toxics) placed in the air outside our city so long as folks keep it out of the lungs of people inside the city."

[...]

Houston doesn't have the right to regulate air quality in another city, said Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston.

"Houston is creating regulations other people have to live by. This is bad policy," Janek said of White's plan, adding that TCEQ ought to set tougher standards, not the city of Houston.

"We tried to leave it to the state for 15 years, and nothing's happening," Gallegos said. "TCEQ is not going to do anything. They will leave it as it is. You have the same fox guarding the hen house. Another two years will go by with no regulation."

Strictly speaking, Sen. Janek has a valid point. This should be the TCEQ's job. Unfortunately, the TCEQ lacks any real power to do that job. The Lege could give it a genuine mandate to do its job, and indeed multiple bills have been filed this session to do exactly that. Unfortunately, these and other such bills have to go through the House Environmental Regulation Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Dennis Bonnen, the polluter's best friend in Austin. As the Dallas Morning News editorializes this morning, Bonnen has given great lip service to environmental action, but hasn't done squat beside that.

While many lawmakers bear responsibility, Rep. Dennis Bonnen's lack of leadership has been particularly disappointing.

Last month, the Angleton Republican, who leads the Environmental Regulation Committee, spoke of long-term strategies and clean energy. He scheduled hearings for 18 bills that would protect the air we breathe. We called it an "air quality extravaganza."

While the pronouncements from the statehouse steps and the much-heralded hearings were dramatic statements, they've yet to yield substantive change.

Now, Mr. Bonnen is pledging to pass comprehensive reforms - in 2009.

Two years is too long to wait. Policies that would make polluting less profitable and would bolster urban areas' efforts to meet federal air quality standards are urgently needed.

A years-long delay is a dangerous prospect for Dallas and other smog-choked cities.

And guess what? Bonnen may be responsible for letting Jackson's bill come to the floor of the House, where it will undoubtedly pass on similarly partisan lines. That nugget is buried at the end of the Chron piece:

Rep. Wayne Smith, R-Baytown, has filed an identical measure in the House. That bill still is in committee. Once Jackson's bill receives final passage, it is expected to substitute Smith's measure for swifter passage.

See, Smith's bill resides in Urban Affairs, which is chaired by Houston Democrat Kevin Bailey, who at this time seems unlikely to give it a hearing. But Jackson's bill, now that it has passed the Senate, hasn't been assigned to a House committee yet. If it goes to Urban Affairs, which as Jackson's own statement about this being a "city sovreignity issue" it ought to go to, then most likely it's sayonara. But if it goes to Bonnen, well, that will be that. I'll keep an eye on that.

One last thing: This bill didn't have to come up for a vote at all. While all eleven Democrats voted against the bill once it came to the floor, Sen. Eddie Lucio abstained on the matter of suspending the rules to allow it to come up. This is exactly the sort of crap that got Frank Madla primaried out in 2006. I don't mind if Lucio or anyone agrees with Jackson on the merits of the bill, but be a grownup about it if so. This sort of thing is - pardon my French - chickenshit. Shame on you, Sen. Lucio.

RIP, ARMPAC

Another chapter in the book of Tom DeLay has come to a close.

The political action committee for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) was quietly closed last week after a decade-long run as one of the most influential - and infamous - PACs run by members of Congress.

With a final $1,400 payment to the Federal Election Commission last month settling an audit dispute, Americans for a Republican Majority then filed its termination papers with the commission April 24.

[...]

ARMPAC also helped precipitate DeLay's fall. In the late 1990s, the PAC was run out of a Capitol Hill townhouse that housed a lobbying firm and a questionable non-profit, both of which were run by lobbyist Edwin Buckham, a former chief of staff to DeLay. For several years Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, paying her more than $100,000 for what has been widely considered undefined work.

Several years later, the FBI and Justice Department began investigating DeLay's connections to now imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff. To date, the investigation has yielded guilty pleas by Abramoff, two former aides to DeLay, ex-Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio), two former Ney aides and a former Interior Department official, among others. Abramoff's and Buckham's clients became major donors to ARMPAC in the late 1990s as well as to non-profits run by the two lobbyists, sometimes with fund-raising help from DeLay. The investigation, which won multiple awards for The Post's investigative team, is considered ongoing.

And of course we know about ARMPAC's bastard stepchild TRMPAC and all of the fun things it did here in Texas. Good riddance, I say. Link via TPM.

Early voting: San Antonio and Dallas

I haven't paid any attention to the municipal races in San Antonio and Dallas - what can I say, there's only so much bandwidth available. Unlike 2005, which featured a hot three-way race in the Alamo City, this one is much lower key as popular Mayor Phil Hardberger will cruise to re-election. The Walker Report, which is the best source of info about who's supporting whom in these races (I swear, the dude goes to every campaign event in the city), has the Express-News endorsements (full story is here). I see they tabbed Mary Alice Cisneros for Council District 1. Will Henry get the itch to run for something again, or is he happy to let his wife have the spotlight now?

Meanwhile, the Morning News endorses Tom Leppert for Mayor, and makes its other recommendations here. These I know nothing about, but StoutDem has some recommendations. I should note that John McClelland, running for Dallas City Council District 12, is a fellow blogger at the Burnt Orange Report.

Have you voted for Melissa Noriega yet? Yes, I'm going to find a way to mention this every day during early voting.

Targeting 2008: State Senate

I spend a lot of time analyzing different types of races, for State House, for Congress, and for countywide offices. I do this because it's where most of the action is. Since I first started to really follow this stuff in 2002, I can't think of a single general election State Senate race that was particularly compelling or competitive.

I'm hoping that 2008 will be very different. For one thing, if we've learned anything from the past few sessions, it's that the Democrats in the Senate have no margin for error. The eleven votes they have now are a much more solid bloc than the twelve they had in 2003 and 2005, but with one member forced to stay home most of this session due to health issues, the Dems may find themselves in a position where they can't block a bill they really want to. Even with all eleven present, they're still at the mercy of a single turncoat. The only cushion for this will be to elect more Democrats.

Fortunately, it looks like the Dems will have some chances to do just exactly that in 2008. Before I begin, let me say that I'm indebted to a reader who goes by the handle "blank", who sent me some numbers that make the case for State Senate action clear, and who identified a top target that had been completely beneath my radar. "Blank" did the heavy lifting on this one, I'm just putting some polish on it.

Based on 2006 performance in their districts, there are four Republican Senators who should draw strong challenges this year, if the Democrats are serious about making inroads in the Lege. Here they are, based on the numbers in the Moody/Willett Supreme Court race:

Dist Senator        Dem  GOP   KBH   BAR Jones Henry Willett  Moody

===================================================================

10   Kim Brimer    43.3 56.7  61.7  38.3  55.2  44.8    52.7   47.3

16   John Carona   41.5 58.5  62.1  37.9  57.7  42.3    53.4   46.6

9    Chris Harris  40.0	60.0  64.6  35.4  58.8  41.2    55.8   44.2

11   Mike Jackson  38.5 61.5  65.5  34.5  59.2  40.8    56.7   43.3

A full listing is here (Excel spreadsheet). Jackson already has a strong opponent, and there's rumors he'll retire after this session. Carona is in the same boat as Pete Sessions in that there's only so many targets left for Dallas Dems to shoot for, so I expect him to get a big name opponent, possibly a sitting State Rep. Harris isn't very well liked, but as his district covers parts of Dallas, Tarrant, and Denton counties, with Denton being nearly half of it, I think he's the most likely to skate by without having to break a sweat.

The one who surprised me, as much by his mere inclusion as by his placement atop the list, is Kim Brimer. His district is entirely within Tarrant County, which is the one major urban county to remain a Republican stronghold (though that's gradually weakening), so it hadn't occurred to me to look there. But by every measure, Brimer is the Republican Senator in the bluest district.

Part of this is electoral drift. Compare how various State Rep and Congressional Democratic candidates did in the parts of their districts that overlap Brimer's SD10 Tarrant County in 2006 and 2004:

CD  2004 Dem   Votes    Pct   2006 Dem   Votes    Pct Change

============================================================

6      Meyer  58,507  35.22     Harris  37,864  40.33   5.11

12  Alvarado  55,186  30.76     Morris  36,672  33.92   3.16

24      Page  26,573  28.86       Page  17,880  32.72   3.86

26     Reyes  49,764  45.90   Barnwell  30,088  47.72   1.82

Total        190,030  34.80            122,504  38.32   3.52




HD  2004 Dem   Votes    Pct   2006 Dem   Votes    Pct Change

============================================================

90    Burnam  14,841  65.22     Burnam   9,647  73.00   7.78

93   Gregory  17,924  43.94    Pierson  10,761  49.35   5.41

94 Woolridge  21,262  36.89     Pillow  11,145  32.49  -4.39

96       Cox  26,447  39.67 Youngblood  16,475  44.29   4.62

97   Stevens  23,425  36.76    Barrett  16,900  40.82   4.07

99      Popp  17,602  30.33       Ford  12,279  33.83   3.50

Total        121,501  39.24             77,207  41.91   2.67

On the Congressional side, I'd rate David Harris and Tim Barnwell as better candidates than Morris Meyer and Lico Reyes, but the other two are a wash. Burnam was unopposed in 2006, so his percentage is an estimate; Paula Hightower Pierson won her district. David Pillow ran against ParentPAC candidate Diane Patrick, who'd knocked off the unloved Kent Grusendorf in the primary. Both HDs 96 (Bill Zedler, 52.46% in 2006) and 97 (Anna Mowery, 55.93%) should draw strong challengers as well. It's hard to judge how a Presidential year will compare to a non-Presidential year - obviously, who's at the top of the ticket will make a difference - but the opportunity is there for the Dems to improve on those numbers further.

And that's critical, because the situation is even closer to a tipping point than these numbers indicate. In 2006, there was one high-profile countywide race in Tarrant, for District Attorney. Democratic challenger Terri Moore got 46.84% of the vote, easily making her the best-performing Democrat in the county. As you can see from this spreadsheet, she came even closer to winning a majority of the vote in SD10 - she wound up with 49.22% of the vote there. Yet in doing so, she had fewer votes than incumbents Burnam and Veasey, while running even with Hightower Pierson; she did do better than the other Democratic challengers. In other words, there's still room for growth.

Now of course the Democrats have to actually nominate someone who can give Kim Brimer a run for his money. I'm told they're working on that, but until then this is all theoretical. And for sure, it's a lot easier to make this case on the Internet than it is in real life. Brimer isn't a particularly distinguished Senator - considering that the Metroplex contingent includes the likes of Jane Nelson, Florence Shapiro, and Royce West, plus Harris and Carona, he's practically invisible - but he's still an incumbent, and he'll surely have whatever resources he'll need. The point I'm making is that you can't win if you don't try, and this is a race that needs trying. I'll keep an eye on this one to see what develops. Thanks again to "blank" for the inspiration and the data.

UPDATE: Correction noted per blank's comment. I'll try to dig through the precinct numbers and come up with the actual SD10 totals.

Define-A-Thon

I confess, I've never understood the allure of spelling bees. I mean sure, they can be compelling enough as entertainment, but (and I say this as someone who is a good speller) who cares if you can memorize a bunch of obscure words? To me, if they're not a part of your vocabulary - if you can't use them, because no one would know what the hell you're talking about - the value of those words is limited. As such, I'm delighted to hear about this.

Now that spelling bees have been turned into a hit Broadway show and crossword puzzles into a movie, the publishers of the American Heritage Dictionary are hoping to create a cultural moment with a competitive game about definitions.

Dictionary publishers typically send out news releases highlighting new entries -- "blogosphere," "instant messaging" and "shout-out" are recent examples -- but struggle to find other ways to get attention.

"I think everyone publicizes new words, so I want to go beyond that," said Taryn Roeder, 32, who as Houghton Mifflin's assistant director of publicity promotes the American Heritage Dictionaries reference line.

So this year Houghton Mifflin created -- and trademarked -- the Define-a-Thon, which is modeled after a spelling bee but instead asks contestants to match words to definitions (and gives them a helpful list of words to choose from). The publisher has dispatched Steve Kleinedler, supervising editor at American Heritage, to hold events across the country.

On a recent Thursday night in Cambridge, Mass., about 225 people filed into the Brattle Theatre in Harvard Square to watch a Define-a-Thon. After two heats of 20 contestants each, the finalists were Brandy Jones, a community design planner who picked the correct word for definitions like the ringing or sounding of bells ("tintinnabulation"), and Katherine Bryant, a science textbook editor, whose definitions included head-scratchers like the right to use and enjoy someone else's property without harming it ("usufruct").

[...]

A three-time finalist in the Scripps National Spelling Bee, Emily Stagg, was a featured competitor in the movie Spellbound who inspired the Define-a-Thon, according to Roeder, the American Heritage publicist. In an opinion column in the New York Times last May, she wrote, "Why don't we make the National Spelling Bee a 'definitions bee,' where competitors need to know primarily what words mean rather than simply how to spell them?"

Amen, sister. I think that would have a lot more value. And I'm totally going to use the word "usufruct" in a sentence sometime this year.

By the way, for anyone else who thinks that what words are used for is more interesting than what they look like, I recommend the radio show Says You!, which runs on KHOU here Saturdays at 11, which is to say following Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!. Unfortunately, they don't have a free podcast like Wait Wait does, so I don't always get to hear it in a given week. But if you like words, and especially if you enjoy the occasional vile pun, it's a great listen.

News flash: Border wall still hated on the border

No surprises here.

South Texas border mayors and economic leaders expressed anger and disappointment Monday after learning new details of the location of 153 miles of controversial fencing in and around border cities -- including some downtown areas.

''I am totally disappointed," said Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas, who heard Sunday night that 19 miles of fencing in his city would begin downtown. ''I remain steadfast in opposition to the building of a fence."

''It is absolute idiocy," said McAllen Mayor Richard Cortez, who contends that illegal immigration can only be stemmed with a guest worker program. "A fence by itself is only going to delay people from crossing."

Cortez and other South Texas officials said U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials vowed to consult with them about locating the fencing projects.

[...]

South Texas border leaders learned some of the details of the proposed fence last Friday, at a meeting where Valley officials circulated a confidential April 20, 2007, memo from the DHS outlining the location of 370 miles of a primary ''pedestrian fence" to be completed by 2008.

The memo included a map that indicated fencing projects in Presidio, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Roma, Rio Grande City, Los Ebanos, Hidalgo, and Progreso.

The memo explained that DHS officials have already ''designated the locations along the southwest border where it is operationally necessary to construct pedestrian fence."

But Cortez, as did other border officials, said they had been previously assured by DHS officials they would be consulted about the fence's location.

Their first concrete details emerged in the last two weeks, they say, when landowners in Hidalgo and Starr counties reported that U.S. Border Patrol agents showed them maps outlining parcels of private property on the Rio Grande the government plans to fence.

"We were told by the secretary of DHS they would be consulting with us before the fence went up, and it has not happened," said Steve Ahlenius, president of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce.

Typical. Sadly, characteristically typical.

HB626 stalls, HB218 advances

Apparently, HB626, in its original or "compromise" form, didn't make it to the House floor yesterday. In this comment to his post that announced the "compromise", Burka says the Secretary of State is "balking at the burdens the compromise would place on them". Just a guess here, but I'd say that means they're saying "we'd need a buttload more money to be able to implement this". Which, if true, would mean the budget would have to be jiggled to take that money from somewhere else, since the budget rules adopted by the Republicans say just exactly that. At this point, I have no idea what will happen with this bill. When I hear something, I'll post an update.

Speaking of the Secretary of State, maybe asking them to check everyone's citizenship isn't such a good idea even if they get the funding they'd need.

The state acknowledged today that computer backlogs in a new state database has caused problems for some people who showed up on the first day of early voting and discovered their names were not on the roster.

Among those whose names did not appear today were the city of Prairie View's mayor and mayor pro-tem.

Scott Haywood, a spokesman for the Texas secretary of state, said the agency has received complaints from about 17 jurisdictions that did not get a complete report of registered voters for the May 12 elections.

Haywood attributed the problems to technical setbacks in the Texas Election Administration Management System, a new state database that makes it easier to track people moving around Texas. He said the agency has made improvements to the system and all counties should receive a completed list today.

I hope nobody in my audience was affected by this.

Meanwhile, the voter ID bill HB218 passed out of committee in the Senate, with some differences from the House version.

Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, tweaked the House-approved proposal by not exempting any voters from the identification requirement. His version also stipulates that the ID mandate not affect voters until January, four months later than the House-adopted take.

So they decided it's better to disenfranchise Royal Masset's mother than allow for a potential equality-under-the-law claim in the future lawsuit against this sucker. Glad we cleared that up. Next up, Rodney Ellis and the Senate Eleven (we hope!) versus David Dewhurst. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Vince has more.

Early voting in New Braunfels

In addition to Houston and Farmer's Branch, there's an election of interest going on in New Braunfels, where irate tubers are attempting to recall New Braunfels City Council Member Ken Valentine, who has been the driving force behind most of the new river regulations. This recent story has an update on that effort.

The effort to recall Councilman Ken Valentine in the May 12 city election is being seen by many as a referendum on the strict new rules on tubing the Comal and Guadalupe rivers, which Valentine championed.

The group KeepNBNB insists, however, that Valentine's positions on river issues is just one example of his "divisiveness" and failure to represent his entire district by focusing only on river-related issues that affect just him and his immediate riverfront neighbors.

"We had an opportunity to do a bunch of things everyone could agree on," recall spokesman Kevin Webb said, claiming there is broad consensus to improve streets and drainage and beef up the police department. "But he decided to do the one thing no one could agree on."

In the last two years, Valentine led successful efforts to enact bans on Jello shots and beer bongs and to enforce one of the nation's toughest noise ordinances on the river. This year the council put in new restrictions on the size and number of floatation devices people can bring on the river and, most controversially, limited people to one 16-quart cooler per person.

"He's never won a contested election in his district," Webb said. "But he is setting the agenda in our city. I don't know where he thinks his mandate came from."

Valentine said that while controlling the huge crowds, litter and drunken behavior on the rivers is obviously an important issue, he has spent a lot of time on drainage, streets, parks, youth sports, public safety and beautification issues. He provided a list of 28 issues he has worked on since he was re-elected in 2005.

"This whole thing is solely about river issues," he said of the recall group. "I know it's a divisive issue, but if you don't address the thorny issues, the community is not going to make progress."

Valentine's website is here. Apparently, Big Tubing is out to get him. On the other side, the KeepNBNB folks are excited about voting. I can't wait to see how this one turns out. It may come with its own sequel, too:

If Valentine loses the recall election he will be kicked out of office as soon as the rest of the council certifies results. The council would call a special election to fill the vacancy, and Valentine said he would run again.

Meanwhile, there's an open City Council seat in New Braunfels that's also on the ballot. Something tells me that race hasn't gotten as much publicity.

We got a robocall from the Harris County GOP this afternoon, but it was just informational - it said there's an election going on, make sure you vote, visit our website to see candidate responses, and that's about it. The more Republicans that vote, the more likely that there will be a runoff. The best thing you can do about that is make sure you get out and vote for Melissa Noriega, and that you tell everyone you know to do so, too.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention, the brief candidate bios that weren't in Sunday's paper are now on the City Hall blog.

State Auditor busts TxDOT

Didn't get to this yesterday, but Eye on Williamson was on it: The State Auditor released a report on TxDOT's claimed funding gap. To sum it up, the way they calculate their much-trumpeted $86 billion shortfall is baloney.

The accuracy of the estimated costs for metropolitan and urban regions cannot be determined because of the lack of supporting documentation.

The methodology the Department used to calculate the amount of the funding gap provides a general assessment of the statewide need for additional mobility funding; however, it may not be reliable for making policy or funding decisions. To calculate the funding gap, the Department collaborated with the eight largest metropolitan planning organizations to obtain cost estimates, and it used those estimates to determine the funding gap for metropolitan regions. The Department provided some guidance to the metropolitan planning organizations. The data the Department used were cost estimates that were self-reported by the metropolitan planning organizations. The cost for urban regions was estimated by the Department based on broad and generalized assumptions. For the estimated costs in rural regions, the Department relied on cost estimates for the Texas Trunk System (a project developed in 1990 to connect the rural regions of the state with a statewide system).

The Department and metropolitan planning organizations also asserted that the main benefit from funding gap estimates was the increased communication and shared responsibility between the entities to address mobility and funding challenges. The Department stated that it plans to update the funding gap estimate every two years and make improvements to the reporting methodology.

We've known for nearly a year that TxDOT was using inflated numbers. More recently, the Texas Transportation Institute study that was done for the Governor's own Business Council suggested the total was overstated by thirty billion dollars. Now it looks like the exaggeration is even greater than that.

That $86 billion figure has been cited repeatedly by Texas Department of Transportation officials and some legislators as a major reason for the state's increasing need for new toll roads. The number is a compilation of estimates from local transportation planning agencies around the state that were produced at the behest of the Transportation Department.

The report said those estimates include mathematical errors and that another $36.9 billion needed for projects in metropolitan and urban regions was "undocumented" and that $8.6 billion of the overall total should not have been included because of mathematical errors and other flaws in the estimates.

In other words, more than half of that claimed $86 billion deficit is phony. Is there any wonder why nobody trusts TxDOT any more?

The circle of life in Lobbyist Land

Behold how the world works.

The House's second most powerful member inserted a provision in the budget last month that would all but guarantee a state contract for a company run by a former state official.

The lawmaker, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, acted at the request of a former House colleague who is now a lobbyist for the company.

Former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth brought him the proposal, and she acknowledged that it would probably steer a technology contract to GHT Development, owned by former Deputy Health and Human Services Commissioner Gregg Phillips.

"I was trying to advantage my client," said Ms. Wohlgemuth, a Burleson Republican who wielded vast influence on social services policy in the 2003 Legislature and is now a health-care lobbyist.

Yes, that's Arlene "Queen of CHIP Cuts" Wohlgemuth, and that Gregg Phillips. Who wouldn't trust those two, right? As always, the real scandal is that everything here is perfectly legal. Read it and weep.

Where all the draftees are pretty, and every class is above average

I just have one question regarding the weekend's NFL draft: What do you have to do to earn a failing grade from John McClain? I mean, look at his recap of the AFC and NFC teams. I mean, I can believe that everyone did more or less okay - this isn't a zero-sum game, every team has its own needs, yadda yadda - but even if he's not grading on a curve, what exactly is McClain's criteria for a "good" draft versus a "so-so draft". Look at what he wrote for the Bengals, for instance:

Outlook: CB Leon Hall will start immediately. RB Kenny Irons should give them a second effective runner. QB Jeff Rowe was underrated.

Sounds pretty good. Now compare this to what he wrote for the Falcons:

Outlook: In the first three rounds, GM Rich McKay drafted players who should start and fill needs. DE Jamaal Anderson replaces Patrick Kerney. G Justin Blalock also could start at tackle. CB Chris Houston could start opposite DeAngelo Hall.

Also pretty good. So how is it that the Bengals got a C and the Falcons an A? I don't see an obvious difference in their outlooks. What made one better than the other?

Looking through the rest, you can see some hint of objective methodology. Not having as many picks as other teams is a mark against you. Not filling a clear need is another, and presumably drafting a player who's a "reach" is as well. But what's really important? What's the measuring stick? Compare, for example, to the USA Today report card, which gives a description of its ratings as well as a few failing grades. Was that so hard?

Maybe I'm just a cranky stathead who needs numbers to give my life meaning. And yeah, it's all subjective anyway. But surely I can't be the only person who read this and wondered where McClain got some of his letter grades from. Can I?

UPDATE: Just to pile on a little, note that USA Today gives both the Bengals and the Falcons three stars. Make of that what you will.